Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Elderly People (Hospital Care)

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the elderly in long-term hospital care.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The health care needs of the elderly will continue to be the Government's highest priority.

Mr. Dunnachie: What steps have been taken properly to assess the elderly before they are committed to long-term hospitalisation or nursing home care? Will the Minister take a leaf out of the book of the Northern Ireland people, who have decided that only consultants involved in geriatric medicine should assess people's needs?

Mr. Forsyth: The responsibility for care in the community will lie with local authorities and guidance will be provided on that. Health care needs are a matter for the consultants. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we plan to ensure by April next year that care plans are agreed between health authorities and local authorities so that elderly people's needs from the various agencies can be properly met.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister tell the House how it would help care in the community if the Greater Glasgow health board went ahead with the proposal to close the Stoneyetts and Birdston hospitals in my constituency? If the chairman of the health board continues to decline the invitation to come to a public meeting so that everyone involved can have a say in the decision, and if the Minister also declines the invitation, will the Minister think again, and encourage the board to think again? Does the Minister accept that if those tragic closures take place, they will be a major blow for community care in my constituency?

Mr. Forsyth: It is for the Greater Glasgow health board to decide how best to provide for care within its area. Where closure decisions have been taken, they require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the provision of care for the elderly in Greater

Glasgow, I pay tribute to the splendid efforts of Laurence Peterken and the chairman of the board to ensure that better facilities are made available for the elderly and I commend them for being prepared to see the removal of facilities that are not up to standard and their replacement with facilities that are more appropriate to the needs of the next century.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of people being cared for now under this Government is dramatically higher than it was in 1979 and that the amount of assistance being given to the elderly is much higher in real terms than the Labour party ever managed?

Mr. Forsyth: The assistance provided in the health service is greater not only than the Labour party ever imagined, but than it promised in its last manifesto. The growth in expenditure in the health service is more than the Labour party promised the electorate, although Labour still accuses the Government of not investing enough. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that there is more provision for the elderly. There are about an extra 1,700 beds. Substantially more patients are being treated. This year 900,000 more patients are being treated than in 1979.

Mr. Dewar: Is the Minister satisfied that Greater Glasgow health board can defend its decision to bring in commercial companies to build and operate long-term hospital provision for the elderly on the basis that those profit-driven companies can provide better and more stimulating care than the board's own staff in its hospitals? Are such arrangements really a question of patient care or are they cost-cutting exercises? Can the Minister perhaps comment on the difficulties that he sees ahead in 1992–93 when the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation —SHARE–formula will take another ³10 million from the Greater Glasgow health board budget, which is already under severe pressure?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should know that with the health service reforms the money will follow the patient. As he has been busily opposing them, I am surprised that he is pleading the case for Glasgow in those terms. With regard to private developments and partnerships between the private sector on care for the elderly, there is no choice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are making savings and providing better care for patients. Elderly patients are being provided with up-to-date and state of the art facilities which represent an improvement on the acute facilities with which they have hitherto been treated. At the same time, health boards have made savings on the revenue side.
It is a pity that Opposition Members' dogma leads them to oppose something that is clearly in the interests of patient care and also ensures that resources go further.

Coronary Surgery, Lothian

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra financial resources he has now decided to allocate Lothian health board for elective coronary surgery.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Negotiations are continuing with Lothian health board, but I will be making an extra ³£3.8


million available for cardiac surgery in Scotland. I will be looking to health boards to achieve a considerable increase in operations as a consequence.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that Lothian health board has informed me that the wait for cardiac surgery is one year? It also informed me that that cannot be amended unless new financial resources are allocated. Is the Minister further aware that we are discussing the question of a better quality of life—and tragically even death—for people in the Lothian health board area?

Mr. Forsyth: The first point is that patients who require emergency treatment are admitted immediately. It is true that the waiting list is too long, but the waiting list in Lothian has been reduced by 5 per cent. during the past year. We are making additional resources available and we are currently negotiating with Lothian about how much they should amount to in order to make further progress. Since 1983 we have doubled funding for cardiac surgery from ³10 million to just under ³20 million and the number of operations has increased from 1,700 to just over 3,000.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the problems, but, equally, we are trying to tackle them by making more resources available.

Mr. Darling: The Minister must be aware that it is no comfort to know that patients will be admitted in the event of an emergency. We need to stop patients being admitted as an emergency and deal with them at the proper time. Is he aware that recently there has been a spate of cancellations, not of operations, but of preliminary examinations and interviews? Does he realise that it is intolerable that people have to wait months to be seen by a consultant and then wait a considerable time to have the operation that they desperately need?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not supported those who took strike action against competitive tendering, waiting lists would not be as long. Waiting lists are considerably shorter than when the Labour party was in government.
On the overall position, the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need to reduce waiting times. We are agreeing with every health board target for waiting times, which we mean to see achieved during the course of the next Parliament and the next Conservative Government.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the governance of Scotland and about local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): A range of representations has been received about the governance of Scotland and local government reorganisation.

Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the representations that he has received from the constitutional convention are flawed and fraudulent? They fail to deal with the Goschen-Barnett formula, the number of Scottish Members of Parliament and the West Lothian question. Is not that a guarantee for disharmony, disunity and conflict throughout the United Kingdom as stated by the Leader of the Opposition? Is not it about time that we received

some information from the Leader of the Opposition about the governance of Scotland and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, as always, speaks with great common sense and wisdom on the subject. However, I believe that the Scottish Constitutional Convention has folded its tents and slipped quietly away into the night. On my hon. Friend's specific question on representations, I can tell the House, and I will be confirming it in a written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) today, that in the past six months we have received one petition and a large number of letters and postcards. The petition was in favour of devolution as were 14 of the letters and postcards, 10 were in favour of separation and 222 were against devolution.

Mr. Galloway: Can the deputy governor explain why the Government are prepared to turn the world upside down in order to put talks together in Northern Ireland about devolution of power to the people there? Why is devolution good enough for the people of Ulster, but not good enough, or too good, for the people of Scotland? The House deserves an explanation.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should advertise too much his views on the Irish question, but Northern Ireland involves a very different set of circumstances from Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the second most major and influential figure in the Labour party in the west of Scotland. It is a close-run thing between him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was therefore interested to see the comments of the hon. Member for Hillhead in The Sun on 7 June on the sacking of Mr. Jimmy Allison when he said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but is it relevant to the question?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, it is relevant because it shows the kind of Scotland that the hon. Member for Hillhead's party is aiming towards. He said:
It was Clydeside versus Kelvinside. Pints of beer against glasses of dry white wine.
That is the new Labour party, is it—glasses of dry white wine in Kelvinside?

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend had any representations about the size of Scottish constituencies? I know that all right hon. and hon. Members want to ensure that we get value for money and, as hon. Members from Scotland represent a far lower number of constituents than those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is not it time that we had some boundary reviews and reduced the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House?

Mr. Stewart: I have had no such representations and such matters are for the boundary commission. But my hon. Friend is right to raise that question in relation to devolution. I refer him to an academic study, the Strathclyde papers on government and politics, No. 78, which pointed out that the Scottish Constitutional Convention had completely failed to face up to the West Lothian question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred, and had completely failed to face up to the implications of devolution for the House of Commons.

Mr. Sillars: Do not the Scottish people deserve a better discussion about their future than the comic-cuts exchange here this afternoon? Will the Minister consider whether it is sensible for the Scottish people to opt for the best form of government within the EC—that is, to be represented by themselves as are the people of Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Luxembourg, which is presently the President of the EC with a population smaller than that of Edinburgh?

Mr. Stewart: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I congratulate him on the excellent speech that he made in the House on a Friday recently when he completely tore apart the proposals by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Government believe in the Union and in the United Kingdom and believe that that is the best constitutional arrangement for the people of Scotland as it is for the people of the other countries that make up the United Kingdom.

Mar Lodge

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Kit Martin about the future of Mar Lodge; and what proposals he now has to restrict deer on the Mar Lodge estate in keeping with the age structure of the ancient Caledonian forest.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Mr. Martin has, however, had some discussions with officials of Historic Scotland about the future of the lodge house itself.
The Cairngorms working party is currently considering deer management and the future of the native woodlands in the area and we shall give careful consideration to its recommendations.

Mr. Dalyell: Either in answer to my Adjournment debate tonight or now, will the Ministers say whether they broadly accept the analogy that, in human terms, these trees are 80 to 90 years old and that this is the last chance to save a major part of what remains of the ancient European forest? How can we tell people in Brazil, Sarawak or Zaire that they should look after their rain forests when we do not seem able to look after our own living treasure?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, the old Caledonian forest, which I have seen myself, is significant in the area. It is sad that the proposals of the Crown Estate Commissioners fell through, as the hon. Member knows. We remain prepared to consider any proposals put to us and we shall take a keen interest in them. Resources are available to fund management agreements, and I intend to go into that more thoroughly in answer to the hon. Gentleman's debate tonight.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Since Mr. Kit Martin has been mentioned, and as he is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and as he has restored houses in Scotland and England without introducing golf courses and all the other rubbish usually associated with such activities, will my hon. Friend note that the heritage of Scotland is greatly safeguarded by the investment of such people and greatly threatened by the lack of funds for the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have increased resources for the Historic Buildings Council for Scot land —now Historic Scotland. Mr. Kit Martin's abilities are well known and he is eligible to apply for grant if he chooses to. He has never done so thus far in any of his successful ventures. The rebuilding of the lodge is a matter for his judgment.

Mental Illness

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the provision of facilities in the community for those suffering from mental illness and the development of community mental health teams.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Day places in psychiatric specialties have more than doubled to around 5,500, grants of ³3·25 million have been introduced for mental illness and a ³15 million bridging finance scheme will help a number of projects in the mental health field.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied with progress in implementing the grants under the mental health scheme? I urge on him the need to give sympathetic consideration to the needs of the poor people who suffer from brain injuries. They must surely be brought into the ambit of the grants scheme—at the moment they fall outwith it. I readily acknowledge the Minister's efforts on the medical side, but I urge him to look more sympathetically at the community needs of this group.
A similar plea can be made for dementia sufferers and their families; they too suffer from a lack of day care facilities and of respite care for their carers.

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a considerable interest in this matter and his suggestion seems sensible. I am happy to give him an undertaking to look into the possibilities of doing as he asks. He will know that we have recently established and made an announcement about a national centre for head injury victims, but I shall look positively at his suggestion of using the grants scheme to help people who have suffered from brain injuries.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Minister aware that Grampian health board has recently announced that in the next seven to 10 years it intends to close two mental hospitals in my constituency—Kingseat and the House of Daviot? Does he accept that there is concern that those closures are part of a plan that meets the needs of the health board, but not always those of the patients and their relatives and friends? They are anxious because people are being forced into the community without adequate facilities and support. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not sanction any hospital closures until he is satisfied that adequate community care facilities have been provided?

Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, I respectfully suggest to him that asking such questions will not allay the fears that he says exist. He should be in no doubt that one reason why the care in the community programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is our determination that patients should not be discharged from long-stay care unless proper provision is available in the community. The White Paper proposals, which are now being implemented,


are designed to ensure that local authorities and health boards operate in partnership to avoid any possibility of patients being put in that position.

Mr. Worthington: Is the Minister aware that one reason why the programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is that the resources have not been devoted to community care of the mentally ill. The Minister must be careful not to mislead the House. He referred to ³15 million of bridging finance for the mentally ill. As he well knows, much of that is for the mentally handicapped.
Has the Minister spoken to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about the cuts in training places for the recovering mentally ill? We have lost 120 training places, three centres have been closed and expenditure for the Scottish Association for Mental Health has been cut from ³1·5 million to ³1 million. That is a backward step for community care.
Why is it that in Scotland two and a half times as many people are in mental hospitals as in England and Wales? Why is the number of training places per 1,000 of the population 15 times greater in England and Wales than it is in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks why there are more people in mental-illness and mental-handicap institutions in Scotland than there are in England. It is because the implementation of the care in the community programme has moved more slowly. The hon. Gentleman suggested that less money was being spent in Scotland on those areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The health service in Scotland receives about a quarter more expenditure per head than it does in England. The pace at which we have implemented the care in the community programme has been determined by the facilities that are available in the community. That will remain so.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards hospitals opting out of health board control; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to strengthen the present arrangements for consulting the local community and the staff of any hospital contemplating trust status.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): NHS trust status bestows a number of benefits, foremost of which is that it provides the opportunity for improved patient care through the delegation of responsibility to a local trust board.
The Government have made it clear that we value an input by the public into the application process, and arrangements for consultations are laid down in the National Health Service Trusts (Consultation Before Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 1991. Those provide for wide-ranging consultation.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that opposition to this policy in Scotland is intense and widespread? We saw what happened in England when hospitals opted out. At Guy's and Bradford hospitals entire specialties have been closed, and hundreds of jobs are to be lost. If jobs are to be lost on that scale in an opted-out hospital, there is bound to be a reduction in the range and quality of services provided. Why does not the

Secretary of State have the courage to call a halt to the proposals before they damage the health service in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the House will agree that it is far too soon to judge the success of trust status developments south of the border. I venture to suggest, however, that if Guy's hospital had enjoyed trust status for some time, it might not have had to face the problems that it has experienced recently.
The purpose of trust status is to improve the quality of health care and the delivery of health services. Trust status hospitals will remain in the national health service, and will continue to treat NHS patients free of charge. I believe that they will be to the advantage of health care in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: Will the Secretary of State guarantee to abide by the outcome of the consultations on local opinion that will form part of this exercise? Or will we see the same process that we saw in England and Wales, with a decision being made in advance and rammed through despite the recording of virtually unanimous public opinion in the process?

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make the final decision as a consequence of the consultation process, which is a key part of the exercise. It is laid down in statute and provides for criteria that will be applied. Detailed guidance has been issued, and the process will take place over a substantial period.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the nonsense that has been talked about the benefits of opting out? He says that the hospitals involved are simply being returned to local control, but in effect he is saying that Grampian health board, for instance, is completely unrepresentative, and incapable of running the health service in Grampian. He describes competition as benefiting the health service, but how can that be so when there is a guaranteed monopoly of supply in the Grampian region? Why not leave things alone? They are working pretty well as they are.

Mr. Lang: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's expression of approval for the quality of the health service in Scotland, which was not reflected in some of the earlier comments made by his hon. Friends.
Grampian health board supports the trust concept, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can pray the board in aid. One of the merits of trust status is the fact that key decisions would be made locally without bureaucratic procedures and delays. The hon. Gentleman should look for the positive advantages, instead of approaching trust status with a closed mind.

Mr. Graham: Does the Secretary of State realise that "opt-out" has become a dirty word in Scotland, just as "Tory" has become a dirty word? Will he give us an assurance that TV detector vans will stop hounding and harassing long-term elderly patients in hospitals? Will he call a halt to that despicable practice?

Mr. Lang: I am not sure what that has to do with trust status, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that for every pound spent by the last Labour Government on health provision in Scotland, ³4 is being spent now, and


there are 1,300 more doctors and dentists and 7,500 more nurses and midwives in the Scottish health service now than there were when we came into office.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that general practitioners in Forfar, and those who work in hospitals there, are disappointed not to be able to proceed immediately to self-governing status? Nevertheless, they welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that Forfar is to have a new all-purpose community hospital. We have waited 25 years for that hospital, but the health board has failed to deliver.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Positive and constructive thought has certainly been given to the possibility of trust status in the Forfar area. An imaginative concept was presented by GPs in the area, but, as my hon. Friend knows, certain financial and service implications caused us to decide that it should not be implemented. That is not to say that other more interesting and practicable propositions will not be advanced.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State recognise that all his talk of consultation has a hollow ring, given that his colleague the Minister is driving ahead with these schemes irrespective of medical and public opinion?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to the case of South Ayrshire general hospital? He is supposed to believe in consultation. Is he aware that not only have the consultants voted against trust status by 50 votes to nine, but general practitioners in the area have now opposed it by 194 votes to seven? Can he doubt that there is also strong opposition among members of the public? Why is he allowing a determined but small group of perhaps politically motivated men to hijack the hospital? Is it not time that he ended the uncertainty, listened to what is said in the consultation process and stopped the application?

Mr. Lang: On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman calls for more consultation, and on the other he tells me to stop it short and end the whole process now. The whole point about consultation is that it will enable us to hear a range of views and arguments on what are complex and diverse issues and not such as can be reduced to simple ballot. We shall look at the merits of the arguments advanced over a measured period of time in the light of the criteria that we have set down and published, and then we shall reach a decision.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on health service waiting lists in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures show that there were 59,520 people on the in-patient waiting lists. That is more than 17,000 fewer than the number that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: After the drastic reduction in the number of hospital wards in my constituency of East Lothian, we now find that the disgraceful waiting lists for hospitals in Edinburgh are being further aggravated by waiting lists for ambulances to take patients from my constituency to and from those hospitals. As to the waiting list arrangements for the proposed private hospital in

Haddington for the continuing care of elderly patients, can the Minister give any guarantee that beds will be available for elderly NHS patients who need care in that unit, whenever it is introduced?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should raise this matter directly with Lothian health board, which is responsible for the provision of care. In common with other health boards, Lothian is being set targets for its waiting lists. I pay tribute to the way in which it is being innovative and enterprising in trying to ensure that the considerably increased resources available to it produce the best possible quality of patient care. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that Lothian health board is treating far more patients than at any time in its history.

Sir Hector Monro: Many people are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the initiative that he has taken to reduce waiting lists through special resources for health boards. The increase in overall resources available to health boards by an average of 10 per cent. this year, which means many millions of pounds for each board, must go a long way towards improving patient care. Is not that good news for Scotland, in contrast with the moaning and groaning that we hear from the Opposition?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our waiting list initiative has resulted in an extra 100,000 patients being treated. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) repudiated special initiatives of this kind as wasteful and short term. I was even more surprised when I read the Labour party's policy document on health to find exactly such an initiative promised as one that the Labour party would have put forward, had it found itself in government.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister will be aware that the only reason why the waiting list figures are apparently less than they were in 1979 is because the method of calculating them has changed—an old Tory trick. Is it not the case that in the past year in-patient waiting lists have increased by 2·3 per cent. in Scotland? Why is it that the biggest increase in in-patient waiting lists is in Forth Valley health board, which covers the Minister's constituency and is run by a Tory party member? In the other two health hoards run by Tory party members—Ayrshire and Arran, and Grampian—the increases in the waiting lists are also above the national average. Is not that an example of Tory party efficiency in action, and does not it show that Tory party chairmen of health boards are bad for health?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would do himself a service if he were not so selective in his use of statistics. He is right to say that in-patient waiting lists have increased by just over 2 per cent., but he did not mention the fall in day-patient waiting lists over the same period. Since 1987, when the waiting list initiative began, they have fallen by 13 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that waiting lists are down because we have changed the basis on which the figures are calculated, when 900,000 extra patients are being treated this year, an extra 100,000 as a result of the waiting list initiatives, he is living in a dreamland and he does a great disservice to the consultants and doctors in the health boards concerned, some of whom have given up their weekends to get waiting times down.

Share Fishermen

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assistance he proposes to make available to those share fishermen currently prevented from fishing by the eight-day tie-up rule.

Mr. Lang: Share fishermen have a direct interest in the conservation of fish stocks for the future. The aim of the eight-day tie-up rule is to reduce fishing pressure on cod and haddock stocks, to bring long-term benefits to all our fishermen.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Secretary of State seen industry estimates that the combination of the tie-up provision with the unilateral imposition of the 90 mm square panel will reduce the landings of marketable haddock by as much as 55 per cent., and of whiting by as much as 75 per cent? If that does not justify assistance, I do not know what does. Will the Secretary of State personally take charge of the important negotiations at the next EC Fisheries Council on 8 July and guarantee that if the rest of the EC fishing fleet does not accept the 90 mm square panel regime he will withdraw it from this country as well?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we must conserve stocks, particularly of cod and haddock, or there will be no fish for future generations of share fishermen or other fishermen to catch. The best way to do that is by a range of measures which limit effort and capacity and ensure that stocks survive and develop, so that the limits currently imposed can be lifted in due course. That is the best way forward for the long-term future of the industry.

Mr. Macdonald: When will the Governmnt complement the tie-up on the east coast with a weekend ban on the important prawn fisheries on the west coast? Such a ban would have the support of all the fishermen's associations, would not cost the Government a penny, and would represent a radical and effective conservation measure. That proposal has been before the Government for several months. Will the Secretary of State take a personal interest in it?

Mr. Lang: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on a far more realistic approach to the problem than we notice from the Scottish National party and hon. Members on other Benches. We are considering the west coast question very carefully and will take action when we judge it appropriate to do so.

Mr. Summerson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there should be many more salmon in Scottish waters as a result of the lifting of nets in the estuaries of many Scottish rivers. My right hon. Friend will be aware also that a deal should be done with the Faroese and Greenlanders—[Interruption)—to reduce the amount of salmon that they are taking. My right hon. Friend will be further aware—(Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about fishing, not about salmon specifically.

Mr. Summerson: I am talking about the salmon of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should be talking about the tie-up rule. I think that we have heard enough.

Rail Transport

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on present European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland which have a direct bearing on his Department's responsibilities.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that about 85 per cent. of sea passengers from Great Britain to Northern Ireland go through the ports of Stranraer and Carnryan, and that 30 per cent. of all British sea passengers to Ireland use those two ports? Does the Minister therefore accept that a modern rail system in the west of Scotland is important to service that main route between Great Britain and the island of Ireland? Why are the Government supporting a European Community proposal which would take that business away from the west of Scotland and upgrade the railway line to Holyhead, making that the main route from Great Britain?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have given support to Lame harbour, and some ³4 million has been made available from the EC's Northern Ireland transportation programme. However, in the case of any proposals from which funds may be made available from the European regional fund, for either Northern Ireland or Scotland, in which we have a common interest, there will be co-operation between officials of the Scottish Office and of the Northern Ireland Office. Stranraer and Carnryan are located within the Galloway EC regional fund operational programme, which received more than ³8 million in the same period as Lame harbour obtained assistance. As for the right hon. Gentleman's final question, I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has lead responsibility for such matters, and then give the hon. Gentleman a full reply, but I agree with the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Wilson: I strongly support what was said by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). Indeed, I would like the Minister at some point to give the same strong support as was given by the Northern Ireland Office last week to my proposal that the Ardrossan-Belfast route be revived.
Will the Minister consider, too, other parts of the European Commission's territory? Does he not feel some shame or embarrassment when he looks at the railway map of Europe showing the high-speed links developing all over western Europe and then at what is happening in Britain, and especially in Scotland, in connection with the channel tunnel? Will he confirm that the tunnel will come into operation without direct links with Scotland, and that no interchange has yet been identified, never mind constructed, in London so that Scottish passengers can transfer easily? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that there will be no dedicated freight route between Scotland and the channel tunnel?
Looking at the whole picture, does the Minister agree that the level of preparedness in Scotland for the channel tunnel is a disgrace, and represents a potential disaster for the Scottish economy? Before the tunnel comes into


operation, will the Government take the subject seriously and ensure that Scotland will not be further disadvantaged by its advent?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions and I shall deal with them one by one. First, British Rail can and will consider changes to its proposed services in connection with the channel tunnel, if it is satisfied that there is a demand for additional services.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about what would happen before the channel tunnel services start operating in 1994. Manufacturers have not yet been able to quote a firm price and delivery date to British Rail for the specially modified rolling stock required. But British Rail still plans to run night passenger services and freight services from the day that the tunnel opens. With regard to access before 1994, overnight through services are still planned to start when the tunnel opens. Before then the east and west coast main line routes will have services into Waterloo., so that passengers have a convenient interchange for the inter-capital train service.
Finally—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions and he is entitled to an answer. Talks are taking place both with United Kingdom and with Northern Ireland officials about upgrading into a European high-speed rail network throughout Europe, and those talks are going ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to other hon. Members if single questions were asked.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals in Forth Valley health board's area have applied for trust status.

Mr. Lang: An application for trust status has been received from the Royal Scottish National hospital, Larbert.

Mr. Ewing: Has the Secretary of State seen the proposed management structure for the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? The hospital will have a chief executive, a director of planning, a director of finance, a director of clinical services, and a director of nursing and quality assurance. How many beds will have to be closed to pay the enormous salaries that those people will command? If the English example is anything to go by, they will be given free cars into the bargain.
If the Government are at all interested in patient care, why does not the Secretary of State do the sensible thing and, as they would say in Falkirk, throw the whole mad idea into the bucket?

Mr. Lang: I have not seen the submission to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is for the Forth Valley health board to carry out the detailed and comprehensive consultation process according to the published criteria. However, I understand that although the number of patients at the hospital has been reduced, the number of staff has substantially increased.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the successful running of any hospital depends largely on the existence of a harmonious relationship between management, staff, patients and the community? The management proposal for the Royal Scottish National hospital to become self-governing has been clearly rejected by 95 per cent. of the staff, by the patients' relatives association, by Central regional council as social work authority, and by countless organisations and individuals in the community. Will the Secretary of State please get it into his head that if he gives the go-ahead to the management to proceed in the face of such widespread opposition, it will be a recipe for conflict and chaos which will be completely against the interests of the mentally handicapped patients at the Royal Scottish National hospital?

Mr. Lang: The consultation process will be based on published criteria which include benefits to patients, managerial capacity, the involvement of senior professional staff in the management of the trust and financial viability. It is the hon. Gentleman who should get it into his head that the reason why we are advancing the trust status proposals is that we believe that they will improve the quality of care and the delivery of health services in Scotland. Against the background of the vast improvements that the Government have generated over the past 12 years, we have every right to expect the hon. Gentleman to believe that and to support the proposals.

Angiograms (Glasgow)

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many people are awaiting angiogram examinations within the Greater Glasgow health board area.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: At 31 December 1990 the number of patients on the Greater Glasgow health board cardiology waiting list, which includes angiography, was 656. The mean waiting time for those patients admitted in the three-month period up to December 1990 was 44·7 days.

Mr. Martin: Heart specialists to whom I have spoken are very worried about the length of the waiting time for angiogram examinations. As the Minister knows, the examinations can determine whether a patient should go on to have heart surgery. In some cases, however, angiography can be used in relation to remedial treatment for patients who will not need surgery. Many of the surgeons are worried that patients are kept waiting for so long that often by the time they are examined and it is discovered that they need heart surgery, they are too weak to undergo such surgery. Does not that mean that the long waiting list is placing some patients under sentence of death?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of the size of the waiting list, but I should point out to him that while in September last year the figure was 753, by December it had been reduced to 656 —a reduction of 12·;88 per cent. I will ensure, however, that the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed is drawn to the attention of the Greater Glasgow health board in the hope that further progress can be made.

Scottish Bus Group

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the sale of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Within the next few months. Although the target date of April 1991 set out in the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries has not been met, satisfactory progress is being made.

Mr. McAllion: Scottish Office Ministers justified the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group on the grounds that it would create new and vigorous Scottish-based companies and encourage employee participation. Why, then, has the Minister thrown out employee bids in at least two Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries and sold the companies instead to a private predator from south of the border in one case, and to a predator company boasting among its directors the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in the other? Does the Minister not understand that the Scottish bus industry is not a plaything for him to palm off to his party's friends but a vital national service for which he has shown himself unworthy to hold responsibility?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We have followed the terms of the disposal programme exactly and have made it quite clear that the principles under which we operate are sustained and fair competition. We support employee participation and the maximisation of sales proceeds. We have given preference to management-employee buy-out teams—

Mr. McAllion: Where?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is Lowland Scottish, Scottish City Link, Eastern Scottish and Kelvin Central Buses, and that has been done regardless of price, although a 5 per cent. preference was stated in the disposal programme, which is working extremely successfully so far.

Magnetic Resonance Imagers

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present state of the implementation of the proposals for the provision of magnetic resonance imager scanning equipment for hospitals in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: An order for five new magnetic resonance imagers, at a cost of ³4·3 million, has been placed with Siemens UK. Those machines are now being manufactured and site surveys have been carried out at the hospitals chosen.

Mrs. Adams: Is it not the case that, to save money, the Minister approved the purchase of 0·5 Tezler MRI scanners? As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, those scanners are totally inadequate for head scanning. Greater Glasgow health board had to top up money to buy the more adequate 1·5 Tezler scanners. Is the Minister satisfied that in Aberdeen and Dundee, where 0·5 Tezler scanners were also purchased, those scanners are adequate? Would it not have been better to look into the matter more thoroughly and, instead of saving money, to go for the best rather than the cheapest?

Mr. Forsyth: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is no. Clearly, I am relying on medical advice in this matter. I have been given the advice that the machines purchased were adequate for health service needs, but some health boards have sought to get models with more powerful magnetic fields—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of particular needs that they have.
This matter has been drawn to my attention as a result of the hon. Lady's question and I shall inquire to ensure that the advice that I have been given was correct. In addition to the ³4·3 million for those machines, which I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes, we shall also meet the additional costs of installation that the boards will face. If what the hon. Lady suggests were the case—if the 0·5 Tezler machines were not adequate—I assure her that I would seek to have the position changed, but that is not my information.

Community Charge

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the 1990–91 community charge in Scotland has been collected.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Based on the latest collection figures for 1990–91 issued by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and using local authorities' own payment assumption rates, overall around 76 per cent. of budgeted community charge income for 1990–91 has been collected so far. In some areas, the figure is more than 90 per cent.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that many local authorities have decided to charge the cost of non-payment to charge payers this year. Can he take any action against local councillors, especially from the Scottish National and Labour parties, who urged people not to pay and are now charging their own charge payers extra money to pay for that scandalous advice?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is widespread outrage among community charge payers at the fact that they are having to pay for those who have not paid the community charge. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the actions of a number of councillors from Opposition parties, although it has to be said that the leaders of those parties have now called off the so-called non-payment campaign.

Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop hiding behind the smokescreen of the ludicrous non-payment campaign run by the Scottish National party and admit that the genuine non-collection of poll tax in Scotland is almost entirely due to the total unworkability of the tax? If he recognises that, why does he not institute an emergency programme to deal with the crisis that is developing in local government and will cause enormous problems for all local authorities throughout Scotland unless he takes immediate action to deal with it?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has not explained to the House why the figures are so variable. The reason is that where local authorities have taken determined action early on to keep on top of the problem, such as in Borders and Grampian, they have continued to obtain reasonable collection levels. It is true that there has been a slow-down in payments due to the delay in re-billing because of the reduced headline charge, the Government having reduced the charge by ³140. To meet that problem the Government


will ensure that by the end of June Scottish local authorities will have received ³281 million more in central Government grant than they otherwise would have done. Frankly, it is up to local authorities to pursue non-payers.

Rural Transport

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no request from Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.

Mrs. Michie: The Minister may be aware that Strathclyde regional council has delayed yet again the upgrading of three vital roads in my constituency. That is making them very dangerous, particularly during the tourist season. Year after year Strathclyde regional council has done that because it says that it does not have enough money in its roads budget. Might that be partly because the regional council has to finance roadworks on the M8 motorway? Is that not a Scottish Office responsibility?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are spending some ³145 million on trunk roads in Scotland. However, the hon. Lady's complaint is about the allocation by Strathclyde regional council. I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the chairman of the highways committee concerned. In recent years we have enormously increased the resources for trunk roads. Priority is being given to the upgrading of the M74, which is going ahead very speedily.

NHS Trusts

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total funds allocated by the Scottish Home and Health Department to health units seeking to investigate trust status.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to health boards regarding the use of board staff premises and other resources in the promotion of applications for hospitals to opt out of health board control.

Mr. Lang: Units applying to become NHS trusts will remain part of the national health service. It is appropriate, therefore, that health boards should provide

adequate support. To that end, and to assist in the implementation of the NHS reforms generally, all boards have been given additional resources.

Mrs. Ewing: In giving additional resources to health boards and units seeking further information on opt-out status, is the Scottish Home and Health Department prepared to keep very close supervision over how that money is spent? For example, will it be spent on private dinner parties, or will it be spent on public meetings to enable all the people in the relevant areas to be well advised of the various implications of the proposals being placed before them so that they can take a clear and objective decision?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady may be assured that the way in which the money is spent will be carefully supervised. The object of the exercise is to obtain the best possible input of information, opinion and well-argued cases so that a proper decision can be taken, based on the criteria that I outlined earlier.

Mr. Foulkes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said earlier, GPs in Ayrshire have now voted overwhelmingly against NHS trust status, consultants have voted against it and all local ballots show that the public are against it. Is it not therefore a disgrace that public money is being spent on staff time and on Mr. Donald MacNeill's time in promoting NHS trusts, that board property is being used to promote it, and that no similar amount of public money is being used to put the other side of the case? Is not that political propaganda and a matter which ought to be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is desirable that the proposals should be put together openly and freely, using available resources, rather than cobbled together in some back room. The hon. Gentleman will surely share my view that we want to get the highest possible quality of proposals coming forward so that we can consider the desirability of such applications advancing. As for the GPs, it is highly illogical that they should vote against the sort of contracts that most of them enjoy. I can reassure them that GPs will continue to have rights to refer patients to trust status hospitals and that such hospitals will remain part of the national health service and will continue to treat NHS patients free of charge. The objective is to improve services and the delivery of health care.

Unemployed People

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about a further substantial increase in the measures the Government are taking to help unemployed people back to work.
The majority of those who lose their jobs are back in employment after a relatively short time. About 50 per cent. of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. Nearly two thirds do so within six months, and 275,000 unemployed people leave unemployment every month. I am determined to help unemployed people get back to work as quickly as possible.
The Government are already providing a wide range of employment and training programmes helping 650,000 unemployed people this year—much of that focused on those with particular difficulties in finding a job. The measures that I am announcing today will substantially increase that help. In the rest of this year we shall be helping a further 190,000 people; next year an extra quarter of a million. This means that next year we shall be providing help for 900,000 unemployed people.
As unemployment has increased, it has become apparent that for some unemployed people the most effective help that we can give is work experience to keep their skills up to date. The main element of my proposals today, therefore, is a new programme, employment action. This will provide work experience on local projects for 60,000 unemployed people in a full year. It will be targeted on those who have been unemployed for six months or more, including particularly those living in our inner cities. My right hon. Friends and I will be inviting the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland to take the lead in setting up this new programme.
We are also increasing the number of places available on employment training so that an extra 15,000 people this year can learn new skills which will help them find a job. In allocating the additional resources we shall be asking the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies to give priority to people with special training needs, particularly those with literacy and numeracy problems.
I shall also be increasing the help available to long-term unemployed people through measures operated by the Employment Service. This is in addition to the extra 100,000 opportunities that I announced earlier in the year. These new measures will include help for a further 40,000 people in job clubs this year and 60,000 next. We shall ensure that in every part of the country where it is needed this help is designed to meet the needs of specific groups, including white-collar workers and executives. Despite the current downturn, about 50 per cent. of those leaving the job clubs do so to go into jobs.
Finally, I propose to provide an additional 80,000 newly unemployed people this year and 110,000 next with extra help in finding a job so that they get back to work as quickly as possible. This will be aimed particularly at those experiencing unemployment for the first time, who may need help in assessing the opportunities available to them.

All newly unemployed people are already guaranteed an advisory interview shortly after becoming unemployed, during which they draw up a back-to-work plan.
From next month, those who reach 13 weeks of unemployment will also have the opportunity for a further interview to review progress and, if necessary, to revise their plan. In addition, I am today asking the Employment Service to provide new courses for recently unemployed people to have their career options assessed and to be given expert help and support in looking for work. The Government will make available substantial extra resources for these measures which will cost an extra ³110 million in 1991–92 and an extra ³230 million in 1992–93.
We are already providing the widest range of measures ever made available to help unemployed people back to work. The package that I am announcing today will increase the numbers helped by a quarter of a million next year at an extra cost of ³230 million. It is designed to meet the widely differing needs of individual unemployed people. It includes more training for those who can benefit from training; more expert advice and help in looking for a job for those who can benefit from such help and advice; and an entirely new programme for those who can benefit from work experience.
I said in Swansea on Saturday that I am determined to provide as much help as possible to help every unemployed person back to work as quickly as possible. This package is a measure of that determination and of the seriousness with which the Government undertake their responsibilities to treat unemployed people as individuals with different needs and different expectations. It offers a far better deal for unemployed people than has ever been on offer before. It will be widely and rightly welcomed.

Mr. Tony Blair: At a time of deep recession and rising unemployment, we welcome any measures that assist the unemployed. The Secretary of State is right to draw attention to the problems of those with special training needs. We also welcome the recognition that we need more training places for the unemployed.
However, some of us remember that last June—only a year ago—we told the Secretary of State of the impact of Government training cuts on the unemployed. Last October, the voluntary organisations and the training and enterprise councils began warning of the catastrophic effects of those cuts. In January, February, March, April and May, at Question Time and during debates in the House, we constantly told the Government that training programmes were closing, training places were being lost, trainers were being made redundant and the Secretary of State's guarantees on youth training and employment training were at risk. Throughout that time, the Secretary of State denied that any such problem existed.
Having at last admitted the problem, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, through his delay, we have already lost many valuable training providers for the unemployed? Will he confirm that, in the past few days, information technology centres have closed, training programmes for the unemployed and disabled have been shut and schemes for women returners have been abandoned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that his 15,000 places do not come anywhere near the 80,000 places already cut from employment training? Will he confirm that, even after today, he is at best merely preventing further damage, not remedying the damage that he has already done?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm—this point may have been missed—that £230 million is the money for all the packages that he has mentioned, including the job experience programme and training? If that is right, will he confirm that the cash for training today is barely one third of the money cut last year from the employment training budget when unemployment was 600,000 lower than it is today?
The Secretary of State will know that we have been advocating a temporary work programme. He is right to say that not all unemployed people simply require intensive training. Let us look at what he is proposing. Let us look at his response.
Unemployment is 650,000 higher today than a year ago and is rising by 70,000 a month, with 20,000 more unemployed every week. We know from a leak from the Department of Employment that it is estimating another 500,000 unemployed in addition to the 650,000. Does the Secretary of State really believe that an extra 60,000 places—less than one month's rise in unemployment and less than 100 places for the unemployed in each of the constituencies—is a serious response to the unemployment crisis that we face today?
Is the new programme to be on a benefit-plus basis? Will the Secretary of State expect people to work for £50 a week or sometimes less? If so, such a programme has no hope of gaining the consent that it needs to succeed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, contrary to the advice of his training directorate, there will be no training element in the new job experience programme? Does he believe that that is right? Under the previous Prime Minister, who did not boast of creating a classless society or tell us about opportunity for all, and when unemployment was last at 2 million and falling, the old community programme had a budget of £1·5 billion. Is it not a bitter irony that, under the present Prime Minister, the budget for helping the unemployed, even after today's announcement, is £500 million less than it was then and unemployment is now rising from 2 million?
We know that we have the fastest rising unemployment in the western world and, according to the most recent independent forecasts, by the end of this year Britain will have the highest unemployment rate of any country in Europe except Greece, Ireland and what was East Germany. This package does not even take us back to last year's budget. Is it not a derisory response to unemployment? Is it not indeed, as we predicted in the House a few weeks ago, a Government response that is like so much else—too little, too half-hearted and, of course, too long delayed?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) constantly criticises the level of resources that we devote to these matters, but the House will have noticed that he was totally silent on the subject of how much money his party would spend. He was totally silent because he knew that these matters were not included in those subjects that the shadow Chief Secretary identified as immediate spending priorities if the Labour party were ever to gain office. The hon. Gentleman's protestations therefore lack all conviction and meaning.
The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about employment action. I can confirm that the remuneration for those on employment action will be on exactly the same

basis as for those on employment training, and I think that will be understood and accepted by those who volunteer to take part in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that employment action would not contain any training element. He was wrong. Where it is necessary to have an element of training to keep skills up to date, that training will be provided.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour party's proposals, but he knows that, even if he got the money for them, they would never get off the ground. His proposals depend—as was explicitly expressed in the Labour party's policy statement—on negotiation area by area, project by project, with the trade unions. In Liverpool, the city with the highest unemployment in this country, the hon. Gentleman's proposals would depend on the consent of the trade union that this very day is threatening the people of that city, telling them that they will not be able to bury their dead. The only promise that the hon. Gentleman makes to the unemployed is that he will bring them reinforcements.
In 1983, when the Government introduced ballots for trade union members, the hon. Gentleman described our proposals as "shabby, scandalous and a disgrace". The Government, in partnership with trade union members and the electorate, have made him eat every word that he uttered then. The Government, in partnership with the unemployed and the electorate, will make him eat every word that he has uttered today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may help hon. Members if I say that, because there are 32 groups of amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill to be discussed, as well as the Third Reading and the 10-minute Bill, I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.20 pm, when we shall move on to the 10-minute Bill. If hon. Members ask single questions, perhaps all hon. Members who wish to ask a question can be called.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about jobs for ex-Prime Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ron Leighton: As unemployment has exploded for 14 consecutive months, is the Secretary of State aware that we have waited a long time for his statement? Has he not laboured long to produce a very small amount? Is not employment action the new feature of his statement? He said that 60,000 people would be involved, but as it is likely to be a six-month programme, will there not be about 30,000 people on it at any given time? Is not that equivalent to one twentieth of the extra unemployment inflicted on this country since the new Prime Minister took office? Is that really the new programme, or is it perhaps a small pilot project?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Mr. Leighton: As employment action will primarily be a work programme, what wages will be paid? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman so ashamed of the amount that he did not include wages in his statement?

Mr. Howard: I answered that question when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). This is very far from a pilot project. It is a considerable response


to rising unemployment. It will offer practical constructive help to the unemployed and, as a result of the package, we will be helping an additional 250,000 unemployed people next year. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) believes that that is not enough, he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary.

Sir Norman Fowler: Entirely contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has just said, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement, which will do a great deal to combat the effects of unemployment. Will he give an assurance that, wherever possible and wherever appropriate, training should be part of the schemes that are introduced? If unemployment continues to rise, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the finance for those provisions will be kept under review by him and by the Government?

Mr. Howard: I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for the package, and I am happy to give him the assurances for which he asks. Where training is necessary to help people on employment action to keep their skills up to date, it will be possible for the training and enterprise councils to make provision for that training. Of course we shall continue to keep those matters under review as my right hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Did my right hon. and learned Friend share my distaste at the manifest glee of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he tried to predict that the unemployed would not welcome the scheme? Does not the scheme bear out quite clearly our experience, that most people who are unemployed would rather have an opportunity to do something worthwhile, to keep their skills in practice and enhance their opportunities to gain a job? They will welcome the scheme even if the Labour party does not.

Mr. Howard: Of course my hon. Friend is entirely correct. We could have had no more signal example of the antediluvian attitudes of the Labour party than the response of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to the announcement of the package.

Mr. James Wallace: With unemployment at 2·25 million and rising, any package, however minimal, is better than nothing. Will the Secretary of State confirm a simple point? With unemployment today at 2·25 million and rising, even after the package is taken into account, will not less be spent on training than was spent two years ago when unemployment was 2 million and falling? In other words, the Treasury has won.

Mr. Howard: As we have now heard, even from the hon. Member for Sedgefield, it is undoubtedly the case—as I have been saying for many months—that we need a range of measures to help the unemployed. Training is not the only way to help them, and it is not always the best way to help them. That is why we have sought to provide a range of measures so that different unemployed people with different needs can be helped in different ways.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the 2·25 million people who are unemployed at the moment. He will recall that more than

50 per cent. of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. He will also recall, I hope, that in a full year we will now be able to help 900,000 unemployed people. That represents a considerable response to the needs of unemployed people.

Ms. Clare Short: The Secretary of State's answers are too long.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his commitment to the particular difficulties of those with literacy and numeracy problems will be much appreciated? When he talks to the training and enterprise councils, will he draw into his discussions the particular and difficult needs of those afflicted with blindness, and ensure that the TECs can purchase the proper training for the blind people in their areas in colleges and institutions that may not necessarily be in the particular TEC's area? I refer in particular to the centre of excellence in Hereford, which has a great deal to offer in that respect.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is important that the range of help that we are making available which the training and enterprise councils are delivering should be available for blind people as for others. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of the TECs. It is possible through the range of our measures to provide help of that kind. Indeed, I met the 500,000th entrant to a job club in Barnsley just a few months ago. He was visually impaired and he obtained a job through the job club. He is a good example of the way in which we can help all unemployed people.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not pitiful to see a lame duck Secretary of State twisting and turning to try to avoid the consequences of his own Government's policies? It is only a matter of days since we were told, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working" and that "unemployment is a price worth paying." Has the Secretary of State lost all confidence in the market economy? Does he not believe the Prime Minister when he says that the recession will end in a few weeks? Will not the market absorb all those unemployed people? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see ahead that the Prime Minister does not that makes it necessary for him to introduce such measures?

Mr. Howard: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. Employment action and the other measures that I have announced today will help unemployed people to respond to the opportunities that the market will make available. There are 350,000 vacancies in our economy today. I want to see them filled as quickly as possible—and the vacancies that will arise next week, the week after and the week after that. We will help to achieve that through these measures, not through the hon. Gentleman's cheap, snide remarks.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the words of Mr. Eric Hammond this weekend, that Labour does not deserve to win if it sticks to its minimum wage policy?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to remind the House about the damaging consequences for unemployment of the Labour party's minimum wage policy. That policy is now receiving widespread attention


and there is almost universal agreement that its consequences for jobs, prices and skills would be disastrous. Only the hon. Member for Sedgefield remains a prisoner of dogma and unable to see the devastating consequences of that policy.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Secretary of State give the House some information about the numbers that are likely to be involved in Scotland? Will he give me the assurance that, when we meet Scottish Enterprise on Friday, it will have detailed figures about the sums that it will be able to deploy? Turning specifically to training, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really expect that training will be afforded in industry against the opposition of the trade unions and without any clear understanding of what people will be paid during the process? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean on those aspects?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance he seeks, which is that the full figures will be available for the debate to which he has referred. Of course I welcome the co-operation of the trade unions in these matters but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that is an entirely different matter from saying that, before any scheme can be introduced, it must be negotiated with the trade unions area by area and project by project. The hon. Gentleman is not saying that, but the Labour party is.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that his statement this afternoon will be of particular interest to the many members of Thanet job club whom he is likely to meet when he visits my constituency this weekend. Is it not a fact that one of the most debilitating effects of long-term unemployment is loss of confidence? Will he confirm that employment action will help to restore that confidence? Does he understand that my constituents do not want half-baked measures that are negotiated by grace and favour with the trade unions? They want work, and this package will help them.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am greatly looking forward to my visit to his constituency on Friday, when I shall see in action the kind of practical help that we can give unemployed people to get them back to work, delivering the constructive assistance that Conservative Members are so keen to see in action. I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support.

Ms. Short: Having studied the long succession of different and ever cheaper schemes that have been introduced by the Government, I do not accept that what the unemployed need is work experience. Is the Secretary of State aware that I thought that the payment of £10 on top of benefit when peopole were on employment training was miserable, and that forcing people to work for £10 on top of benefit is to use the unemployed to pull down wages even further? The Government's great success is the massive growth of low pay in our economy. A national minimum wage is the answer—[Interruption.] It is better in terms of justice for people and it leads to greater economic efficiency than constant wage cutting, which goes with high labour turnover, poor investment and poor training, which is what this scheme will lead to.

Mr. Howard: I had hoped that, during her encomium to the minimum wage, the hon. Lady would give us her estimate of the number of jobs that it would destroy. It is agreed on all sides that a minimum wage would destroy jobs on a massive scale. The only disagreement between the commentators is about how many jobs it would destroy.

Mr. Alistair Burt: This package will be welcomed in the north-west. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment in the north-west fell substantially in the 1980s due to a combination of national economic conditions, diversification of local industry and an attractive atmosphere for investment in all but Labour-run Liverpool, where the city council cast a blight on Merseyside and its people for too long? Does he see anything in these measures that will help the north-west, especially Merseyside, to escape from under this cloud?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I was in Liverpool on Friday, I was able to see yet again the price that its people are paying for so many years of socialism and Labour government in action in that city. Of course the measures will help the north-west; they will also help Liverpool. The package proposed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield would not. It would be entirely dependent on the consent of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union in Liverpool.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in parts of my coal-mining constituency, unemployment is double the national average? It is not retraining but jobs that people need. When the Common Market offers funds to restore the productivity of coal-mining areas, why do the Government refuse to accept the principle of additionality? Why do they say that, for every pound that the Common Market puts into areas such as mine, the Government will take a pound out, making the area no better off at all?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that what is needed is jobs. Jobs are what we have provided over the past 12 years. There are 3 million more jobs now than there were in 1983. Almost 1·5 million more people are in work than in 1979. As inflation comes down and interest rates fall, the hon. Gentleman will see a resumption of job creation on the scale that we brought about in the 1980s.

Mr. Ashton: Answer the question about additionality.

Mr. Howard: As for additionally—I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question—if the hon. Gentleman looks even more closely into the matter he will find that the practice that the Government are pursuing is exactly the same as that pursued by their predecessors.

Mr. Jim Lester: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the package. Does he agree that the most significant policy change that he has announced today is that help is now available to people who have been unemployed for three months and not only to those who have been unemployed for six months? Will he monitor the effect of that new initiative? If it works in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend suggested and most people hopefully find work within six months, will he consider extending that short-term action?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that feature of the proposals which is new and will be of particular help to the newly unemployed. They will be provided with help by an assessment of their skills and potential. Advice and guidance will be given to them about how they can best get back to work. That is an important part of the measures, and I shall certainly monitor the way in which it works and bear in mind my hon. Friend's point in the course of that exercise.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about additionality and RECHAR, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that the statement that he has made today will be treated with great displeasure in mining areas, because he has told the House that he will not disregard the money that the EEC wants to put into the mining areas to create more jobs?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in my 26 years in Parliament, I have never heard of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box to introduce measures for the approval of the House and seeking to argue in defence of them that the Government are spending more money than ever in history on unemployment, when unemployment is running at record levels in the history of any Government? Does he not realise that the news that he has given us today is very bad indeed, and nothing more than a public relations exercise?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman speaks for his constituents. They, together with unemployed people throughout the country, will welcome the help that will be available to them. They will see that it is designed to be constructive assistance from which they can benefit; and they will want to benefit from it.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that sufficient flexibility will be left with the training and enterprise councils to allow them to support vital skill courses, such as those for the construction industry which is facing a downturn, that will help such industries over their current problems?

Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close and keen interest in that matter, and that he is actively pursuing it with the Isle of Wight TEC. TECs have greater flexibility than has ever been made available to similar bodies before. I know that the TECs are keen to use that flexibility, where circumstances permit, in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Secretary of State has come to the House to convince us that these measures will help the unemployed. Not one Labour Member, not many in the country and certainly none of the unemployed will believe a word that he has said. If I can borrow a phrase from a former Prime Minister, the Secretary of State's contribution for the unemployed is very minute. How much per week will the people who participate in the scheme be paid? Will they be paid benefit-plus or a decent wage?

Mr. Howard: I take some comfort from the fact that most of the measures announced by the Government over the past 12 years have failed to persuade Labour Members. Happily, they have met with much greater success in persuading the people of this country. We regard the

reaction of the people as the final arbiter, and I am sure that their reaction to the package will be very different from that of the Labour party.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reference to white-collar and executive unemployment—something to which comparatively little attention has been given—and although I welcome the benefits of the measures for people in those categories, may I urge upon him a further initiative that will cost him nothing? Many unemployed executives are what we still refer to as middle-aged. As there seems to be a continuing bias by many employers against the re-employment of middle-aged people, will my right hon. and learned Friend put his weight behind an approach to the CBI to suggest that, if a vacancy exists, just because one is over 45 or 50 is no reason why one should not be considered?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I point out that he is not entirely right to say that we have hitherto ignored the problems of unemployment among white-collar workers and executives. There are already a number of executive job clubs, which have been remarkably successful in helping people in that category back to work.
I note my hon. Friend's point about the importance of not discriminating against older workers. We do whatever we can to encourage employers to adopt good practice in that respect. My hon. Friend will doubtless know that the jobcentres are in the forefront of good practice and take their responsibilities on this matter very seriously.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the policies he has put forward for the unemployed are useless, like him? What am I going to tell the unemployed back in my constituency, bearing in mind that the Government keep coming up with a new scheme every other week? The unemployed in my constituency do not believe the Secretary of State because of what is happening; unemployment is climbing and climbing and climbing. They will not believe the Secretary of State, so what am I going to tell them?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his unemployed constituents to go along to their local jobcentre to find out what practical help is available to them. Then they will not have to take it from me or take it from him; they will be able to take it from the people who have the help available.

Mr. Graham Riddick: The extra help and resources that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today will be widely welcomed by unemployed people in my constituency and in west Yorkshire. Will he assure me that he will take no lessons from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose policy of introducing a minimum wage and unquestionably accepting the socialist charter from the European Community would massively increase unemployment in Britain?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right: there can be no doubt that, as increasing numbers of independent estimates confirm, the Opposition's job destruction package would spell doom for many hundreds of


thousands of people in Britain. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it, and we will not allow the British people to forget it.

Dr. John Reid: Why could not the Minister have found even 30 seconds in the last 40 minutes to express regret to the unemployed? Why could he not have had the strength of character to say, "I am sorry that we have created the conditions which have rendered you unemployed, I am sorry that we cut the schemes last year and I am sorry that we did not listen to those who have been saying for 12 months that there should be more money for retraining and job opportunities for the unemployed"? Does he find that impossible?
The 3,500 steel workers in my constituency who have been made redundant in the last four months will not be interested in him or anyone else scoring points here on a minimum wage. They want a wage—any wage at present. They will be convinced that, after 12 months of refusing to bring forward employment and training schemes, the reason why the Minister has suddenly done so has nothing at all to do with the protection of their jobs, but everything to do with the protection of his job and those of his cronies in the Cabinet.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong on almost every count. I have expressed my real sympathy with the unemployed on numerous occasions. Nor is this the first measure that we have brought forward. I recently announced £120 million additional money for employment training and £55 million additional money for the Employment Service. We have responded to rising unemployment at every stage and in an appropriate way. The hon. Gentleman should reflect upon the fact that it is clearly on the record that the policies advocated by the Labour party, if put into effect, would have made unemployment worse today, and the policies which his party is putting forward now would make unemployment worse in the future.

Mr. David Madel: My right hon. and learned Friend has announced welcome help for the shorter-term unemployed, who are often people from the construction industry, and I assume from that that the training and enterprise councils may have to take on more people to help. Will he also have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether, in the public expenditure round now approaching, we can have an accelerated programme of modernisation of council houses and greater improvement grants, so that the work that the training and enterprise councils do will bear fruit in more jobs in the construction industry?

Mr. Howard: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is already well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and that he will bear it fully in mind.

Mr. John D. Taylor: It would be churlish not to welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly at a time when the nation is suffering from a rapid increase in unemployment, but does he agree that the opportunities for the unemployed would be better enhanced if the Government created an economic and industrial policy which encouraged industrialists and business men to create new jobs? As the Secretary of State has announced that the programme will be implemented by the training and enterprise councils in England and

Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland, has he been in contact with the Northern Ireland Office? Does he accept that the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom is in Northern Ireland, and will Northern Ireland benefit from some similar scheme to help the unemployed there?

Mr. Howard: This Government have in place the policies designed to lead to job creation, and they will succeed in the future as they have in the past. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the key necessity if we are to create more jobs is to bring inflation under control. That is what is happening, and it is precisely what the policies pursued by the Government are achieving.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not have responsibility for these matters in Northern Ireland. He will also know—and give credit for the fact, I am sure—that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office take their responsibilities for unemployment and training in the Province very seriously.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing a package of proposals which acknowledges that training is not the only answer when it comes to helping the unemployed? What does he make of the call heard today from the Labour Front Bench spokesman for increased funds for employment training, given that, in 1988, the Labour party conference called on all Labour authorities and councils to oppose the provision of employment training in every way? What will be the verdict of the unemployed on this brazen disregard of the Labour party's recent past?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Not only was employment training opposed by the Labour party; it has opposed tooth and nail every training initiative that the Government have come up with—even the technical and vocational education initiative, which was described by the Leader of the Opposition as fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Labour party's record on training, in government and in opposition, has been negative from beginning to end.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the Government have been in power for almost 12 years and have created the climate in which unemployment has again risen to record heights? Will he take into account the fact that the unemployed themselves view with great cynicism the schemes introduced by the Government over the years, which have done nothing to contribute to a permanent decline in unemployment? When will he begin to think about getting Britain back to work?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every respect. Unemployment is not at record heights. Millions of people have benefited from the programmes that the Government have introduced, which have helped many of them back to work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to learn the lessons of the past, I suggest that he examine the long period when he and his friends have been in office in the city of Liverpool. He will see surrounding him in his own city the results of socialism.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that older workers in their 60s, 50s and even 40s can find it particularly difficult to regain


employment? Does he agree that the measures announced today for further appraisal and training will be especially helpful to this group, who have much to offer in terms of discipline and loyalty?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The help in some of the measures that I have announced today will be of particular value to people in the age groups that he identified, and I am delighted that we shall be able to help them in this way.

Mr. John Battle: Can the Secretary of State explain how my constituents can go along to their job club when recently his Department closed the only jobcentre in my constituency, in Bramley? His colleague told them to go to Horsforth in the constituency next door after promising the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that that jobcentre would be kept open. It has also now closed, so how will the unemployed even gain access to these fringe initiatives when the Department has in the past year closed 1,000 jobcentres—their numbers have fallen from 2,000 to 1,000? Would it not be better to deal with that problem first?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing jobcentres and job clubs.

Mr. Battle: I meant jobcentre.

Mr. Howard: The Employment Service always keeps under review the provision that it makes through jobcentres. When that provision needs to be modified, changed or adjusted, it acts accordingly. The hon. Gentleman will find that his constituents will have no difficulty in taking full advantage of the help that we provide through job clubs and other means. I hope that he will examine the extent to which they are benefiting from these measures and come back and tell the House how much help they are getting from them.

Mr. Tony Fayell: My right hon. and learned Friend's plans to help those who cannot read or write are most welcome. It has been estimated that 30 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are innumerate or illiterate or both. Would he like to come to Stockport to see the adult literacy and numeracy unit run by Mrs. Lois Haslam? The unit conducts one-to-one contact with those who cannot read or write, and is staffed largely by volunteers. A person who cannot read or answer a job advertisement is at an enormous disadvantage. Good work has been done at the unit, and I recommend that my right hon. and learned Friend has a look at it.

Mr. Howard: I was in Stockport only a couple of weeks ago, but I regret that I did not visit the centre to which my hon. Friend referred. I should like to do so the next time that I am in Stockport.

Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the Secretary of State is weeping crocodile tears for the unemployed. In my constituency, a large fertiliser plant, SAI, is being deliberately closed down, although it is one of the most efficient plants in the United Kingdom, because the Government are opposed to its takeover by Kemira, a Finnish state-owned company. Is that not a disgrace and a kick in the teeth? It shows the Government's double standards.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Labour party should not adopt a proper competition policy that requires scrutiny of such matters, he should put his question to his Front-Bench colleagues.
The Labour party is expert at shedding crocodile tears. It declaims about the rise in unemployment while constantly pressing for measures that would be certain to increase unemployment substantially.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency —also a coal-mining area—employment has risen much faster than the national average in recent years? We do not moan about the problems; we talk about the strengths and invite private industry to come to our area.
There are excellent job clubs in Derby and in south Derbyshire. Will my right hon. and learned Friend build on the strengths of such job clubs, especially by making their services available to unemployed people on a much shorter time scale than the current six months that they have to be unemployed to qualify?

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. She will appreciate that the package that I announced today includes help for the newly unemployed, which will be useful to the people to whom she referred. I shall bear her suggestion in mind for the future.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Sadly, this will not be the last time that the Secretary of State will come to the House to complete a U-turn on training. It is a pity that there could not have been a more substantial return at least to the levels of payment of a few years ago. The sickest thing about today's announcement is that the 60,000 makework opportunities will be counted in the Government's figure for the jobs that they have created. They will be counted as employment when no one on the scheme will regard them as proper jobs. People will not get the rate for the job, and they will have no employment rights.
To put the matter in context, the proposal involves 6,000 places—that is the number by which the level of unemployment in Scotland increased in one month. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the community programme had been continued and had paid the rate for the job, people on the programme would have received over £90 a week, while people on this new scheme will receive £50 a week?

Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts. I did not refer to 6,000 places. Next year, 60,000 people will be helped by employment action, and 250,000 people, in addition to the 650,000 we help now, will be helped by these measures.
The precise level at which people on the scheme will be paid will depend on the level of benefit to which they are entitled, as I made clear in my statement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield, as they mutter about this aspect, will reflect on how much help they would be able to give the unemployed if they introduced a scheme that insisted on payment of not only the rate for the job, but the rate of the minimum wage. The amount of help would be truly derisory, even if they were able to get any money from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and they know it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry not to have been able to call every hon. Member, but I shall bear in mind those whom I have been unable to call when we next deal with this matter.

Point of Order

Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill? I served on the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill 1990, which led to the formation of the three countryside agencies and Scotttish Natural Heritage. During the Bill's passage, Committee members were assured that no changes would be made to sites of special scientific interest on a national basis, and that such changes would not be included in a Scottish Bill either, as they were a national issue.
On 6 June, contrary to those assurances, the Government accepted an amendment in the other place allowing a right of appeal in relation to SSIs, in Scotland only. Should not the Secretary of State make a statement about that? Is the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill the right legislation in which to frame such amendments, bearing in mind that the Government have pandered to vested landowning interests contrary to the assurances given in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. It is very much a matter for the Government, but if the Bill is now in the other place, it will return to the Commons and the Government will have to explain the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to put his point.

BILLS PRESENTED

LICENSING OF TICKET SALES

Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of ticket sales for sporting events and entertainments; and to make further provision with respect to the powers exercisable by local authorities in relation to such sales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ETC.

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault; to provide protection for women at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Pet Animals (Amendment)

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951.
The inspiration for the Bill comes from a song that my children are often heard singing:
How much is that doggie in the window,
The one with the waggly tail,
How much is that doggie in the window,
I do hope that doggie's for sale.
My Bill is about animal welfare. It is not an attack on pet shop owners, and it is certainly not an attempt to spoil children's enjoyment. For a number of years, my long-suffering parents lived in fear of whatever animal their wayward child would next bring home. There was no limit to the range of animals that I might capture or purchase from a pet shop: goats, peacocks, pheasants, ducks, geese, salamanders, newts, snakes, frogs, toads, dogs and many others.
As a small child, I should never have been allowed to buy those animals. I had, and still have, responsible parents, who made sure that the animals were well looked after; sadly, however, there are too many instances throughout the country of cruelty to animals, which are reported by the RSPCA and other well-meaning, caring groups.
"Which?" recommends that anyone who purchases an animal should first consider
who'll be responsible for your pet? Remember, children can lose interest".
"Which?" also asks:
how much time do you want to spend looking after your pet? Who'll look after it when you're on holiday?
Is someone at home for most of the day, or should you choose a pet that's happy on its own?
Can you afford to keep the pet of your choice? Consider vets' bills, food, insurance and the cost of boarding when you're away.
Which kind of pet is most suitable for the size and type of home you have?
Do you want a long-term or short-term commitment?"—parrots, for instance, can live for more than 100 years—
many young animals need peace, quiet and lots of your time when they're new; never buy a pet as a surprise for someone, unless you're prepared to keep it yourself if it's rejected".
Which?" says that it should be remembered that a pet is a commitment for 365 days a year.
Only last year, the "Which?" organisation visited 100 pet shops and made return visits to 29. The majority had good practices, but in a minority it was clear that the owners had no idea how to keep the animals that they were offering for sale. I have a few examples. One shopowner told a child who wanted to purchase two guinea pigs that it was all right to keep two males together in the same cage, but very soon, one male guinea pig killed the other. Another told a child that he could keep a red-eared terrapin in an unheated tank, but terrapins need to be kept in warm water at a temperature between 23 and 30 deg C, so the terrapin died very soon after it had been bought.
Perhaps the most appalling example concerned a baby alligator. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen baby alligators, but they are rather cute, and look like a lizard. A pet shop owner sold a baby alligator to a child and, within a short time, the parents had to keep the alligator in a bath.
My Bill amends the Pet Animals Act 1951. This legislation is now 40 years old, and the range of animals


that are for sale in pet shops has altered tremendously in that time. There was an amendment to the Act in 1983, but my Bill will bring it much more up to date. My proposals are as follows.
First, it should be mandatory for a qualified veterinary surgeon to carry out an inspection before the local authority decides whether to issue a licence. At the moment, the inspection can be carried out by a vet or "such similar person". Local authorities should have right of entry to unlicensed premises where they suspect that animals are being sold. Most important of all, it is crazy that, at the moment, a 12-year-old can go into a pet shop and buy a piranha or a python. My Bill would ensure that no animal will be sold to a person under the age of 16 unless a parent is present and has given permission.
Furthermore, no animal should be kept for sale unless the vendor is familiar with how to care for the health and welfare of that animal. Without appropriate written instructions on this, no animal should be entrusted into the prospective purchaser's hands.
So as to improve control over the trading of dogs, the Bill requires every person who keeps a breeding establishment or who carries on a business that includes the selling of dogs as a pet to keep a record showing details of the dogs and where they have been bought and sold. I know that another Bill deals with puppy farming. This should make it difficult for a dog breeder to claim that he is operating only on a small scale or with only one or two bitches. Local authorities that license pet shops under the Pet Animals Act 1951 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 will have the power to demand to see the records. Schedule 3 to the Deer Bill contains a form of record that could serve as a model for the proposals in my Bill.
I make no apology for attempting to introduce yet more animal welfare legislation this year. I trust that I take the House with me when I assert that at the very heart of a civilised society is the judgment of how animals should be treated. My Bill will help to improve the general welfare of animals. I hope that the House will be seen to have a big heart today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

PET ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to inform you, as briefly as I can, of the circumstances in which I escorted around

Parliament today blind and partially sighted students from Temple Banks school in my constituency. It is appalling that the House has no facilities, such as a rest room, that members of the public use. If they wanted a meal, those students had to be led off by the people who accompanied them as their guides. There should be more facilities in the House for such people, and an opportunity to book a suitable room in advance.
I know that such matters are being considered by a committee, which is awaiting the completion of the building in Westminster Bridge road—but that is a long time away. It should be possible to provide suitable accommodation in the House, bearing in mind the lavish facilities that are available in the House of Lords, and which are mostly under-used by members of another place. There is also a proposal to provide MEPs with facilities within the House, but surely the needs of disabled constituents, for example, should receive priority.
I know that you cannot make a decision alone, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I trust that you will add your weight to bringing pressure on the administration to speed up matters. It is less than adequate for so few facilities to be available to our visitors.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Having not only met members of his visiting party this morning, but taken around pupils from Donaldson's school for the deaf and others, I know that the problem he mentions is one faced by all right hon. and hon. Members. Most of us find ourselves hosting a party of handicapped persons at some time or another, and better facilities should be provided.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the proposal to provide facilities for MEPs. It is a fact that the Leader of the House is considering proposals to extend federalism into the House. MEPs will be allowed to use its facilities, and will be found rooms at a time when, as my hon. Friend says, he is campaigning along with many other hon. Members for proper meal and other facilities for constituents on visits to Parliament. It is high time that the Lord President was told by Mr. Speaker that he should make sure that, instead of allowing people from the Common Market to come here willy-nilly, priority should be given to our constituents.
It says something about our society when the Government are more concerned with setting up avocado soup kitchens for distressed Lloyd's members than they are about people from Bolsover.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. As hon. Members have said, the matter is now being considered by the Services Committee, and I can suggest only that hon. Members may wish to draw to the Committee's attention the incidents that occurred today.

Orders of the Day — Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 20

STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS (No. 1)

`. At the end of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—

CHAPTER III

GENERAL

Status of development plans.

54A. Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".'.—[Sir George Young]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 21—Status of development plans ( No. 2).

Sir George Young: The purpose of new clause 20 is to fulfil the commitment that I gave to the House on 16 May when we debated new clause 13. New clause 21 makes equivalent provision for Scotland.
New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was designed to enhance the status of the development plan in the decision-making process—specifically when the planning authority deals with an application for planning permission under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In responding to the substantial debate on 16 May, I said that we were prepared to concede new clause 13, subject to correcting some defects in it. Our decision to make that concession was widely welcomed. Indeed, no less a body than the Council for the Protection of Rural England hailed it as a "historic promise", strengthening
the whole basis of the planning system
and moving forward to a
new era".
In the event, we did not reach a vote on the new clause. That has given the Government the opportunity to table our own new clauses, which achieve the basic objective of new clause 13 but without the defects.
Our new clauses make clear what having regard to the development plan means—not just in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act, but in all places where the planning Acts require regard to be had to development plans. In future, it will mean that the determination is to be in accordance with the plan, unless other considerations indicate otherwise.
That would make clear to local planning authorities and others how to go about making the decision. If the development plan has something to say on a particular application, the starting point would be that the plan should be followed unless the weight of the other

considerations tell against it. In other words, there would be a presumption in favour of the development plan. But it would still allow appropriate weight to be given to all other material considerations.
One material consideration would, of course, be the extent to which the development plan was up to date. Clearly, if the development plan is to carry its full weight it needs to be up to date and consistent with national and regional policies as well as relevant to the proposal in question.
The Government have tried to be helpful, and if the House accepts new clauses 20 and 21 there will be no need to move new clause 13 and no need for us to table amendments to it in another place. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am delighted to welcome new clause 20. It has been described as by far the most significant concession that the Government have made on the Bill in either of the Houses of Parliament. It gives force to the Minister's statement on Second Reading that he wanted development to be plan-led rather than market-led. I have taunted him about that, but I must withdraw my taunt now, because this concession shows that the plan now has an important status in determining development outcomes.
When we tabled new clause 13—which, as the Minister said, was the parent of new clause 20—I did not expect that such a concession would be made. The Minister has gone further than we expected, and it would be churlish of me not to put on record our gratitude for the Government's move. It will be welcomed not only by the Labour party but by many Conservative Members arid many outside organisations.
The new clause will enable local authorities to plan more sensibly and effectively for their areas. It deals with problems that have been caused to planning authorities and developers in both the north and south of England. A major step forward has been taken. That is a good start to today's debate, and I welcome it. I shall not persist with new clause 13.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend be sending out a direction to the planning inspectorate with a definition and explanation of the phrase "material considerations", so that the inspector has an idea what the Government have in mind and does not let his imagination loose on what could constitute other material considerations?

Sir George Young: I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's question, but the notion of "material considerations" is not new. It already appears in planning legislation, so I suspect that there may be no need to redefine exactly what it covers. I shall think about what my hon. Friend has said and decide whether fresh guidance is required for my planning inspectors in order to clarify the Government's policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS (No. 2)

`At the end of Part II of the 1972 Act (development plans) there is inserted—

"General Status of development plans.
18A.—Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".'.— [Sir George Young.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

AGRICULTURAL. BUILDINGS

`—After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted—
(4) No development order may grant permission for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture.'."—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Agricultural buildings ( No. 2 )—
'Planning Permission shall be required for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture in specially designated conservation areas including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, heritage coastline, marine nature reserves, conservation areas and any other areas of special landscape value identified by local authorities.'.
New clause 19—Planning control over agricultural and forestry roads
'After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted:
(4) No development order shall grant permission for the formation of a private way for the purposes of agriculture or forestry.".'.

Mr. Griffiths: Quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since we last considered the Bill. I am a new Member of the House, having been elected at the previous general election—I had hoped that I would have been re-elected by now, but things have happened to put off the next general election. As a new Member, I was intrigued by the Government's failure on 16 May, the day of the Monmouth by-election, to move the business motion on the Order Paper to continue and complete business on the Bill on that day. I checked to find out how often that had happened in the past decade, and I could find only three other examples. On two of those occasions the business was considered the next day, as the previous evening's motion suggested, and on the other occasion the business was considered immediately after the weekend. This time, however, we have had a five-week wait.
In some ways we have benefited from having had to wait, because in the meantime the Government have made significant concessions. The most important of those was embodied in new clause 20, but there have also been some concessions in relation to the new clauses on agricultural and forestry buildings and roads—the subject of our new clauses.
We welcome the further Government concessions on special exemptions from full planning control of agricultural and forestry buildings and roads, which have long been the cause of one of the great anomalies in the planning system. Although I welcome the Government's attempt to take account of the anomaly, I must still say that it does not go far enough. We

believe that the only satisfactory solution is that embodied in our new clauses—that agricultural and forestry buildings and roads should be the subject of proper planning approvals.
The present situation is unsatisfactory. I shall cite two examples from my constituency to illustrate the problems. One example relates to my own village of Cefn Cribwr. The village runs for a mile or so along the top of a ridge, so that from almost every house in the village there is a magnificent view of the surrounding countryside. I am talking in this case about the view from the common, by the Wesleyan Methodist church, towards Margam park, the mountains and the Llynfi and Afan valleys. It is an absolutely magnificent view—one of the best that one could wish to find anywhere in the world.
Recently, a local farmer was able to put up a building for agricultural purposes which, to all intents and purposes, blocked the view enjoyed by a number of people. Right next to the site of that building there is a waterworks holding water for the village of Cefn Cribwr. The fanner could easily have placed the building below the waterworks without affecting the visual amenity enjoyed by anybody. The farmer claims that the planning authority said that the place that he had chosen was perfectly all right and that the building would offend nobody, although the planning authority vigorously denied that it had ever made such a recommendation in its discussions with him. Because the building was not subject to any proper planning procedure, the fanner was able to site it in such a way that it is severely detrimental to the visual amenity enjoyed by those living in Cefn Cribwr.
My second example concerns the laying of agricultural roads, sometimes to the anger of many in my constituency of Bridgend. I shall cite only one case although, on several occasions in the few years for which I have been the Member of Parliament for Bridgend, the actions of Mr. Boland, the estate manager in question, have caused consternation and anger to those living in and around the community of Penyfai. On just about every occasion, it has been found that he has acted within the law—or, rather, right up against the edge of the law—so that it has been very difficult for the planning authority to act. A matter of weeks ago, he built a new road. So large were the mounds of earth and so extensive were the works being undertaken that it looked as though a motorway was under construction. It is generally agreed that the agricultural purpose of the road is very difficult to define, although no doubt when pressed by the local planning authority, Ogwr borough council, Mr. Boland will produce an explanation of the road's agricultural purpose; indeed, he has probably already done so. Nobody in the community can see what that purpose is. If that road had been subject to proper planning procedures, there would have been an opportunity for its true use to be estimated and for the planning authority to make a real decision about whether it should be approved or not. As it is, the planning authority has no power to do that, and it would not have such power even under the Government's concessions.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider the concessions that they have made and consider some means —without the need to introduce primary legislation—by which the notification to local authorities of new buildings


or roads can be made the subject of a proper planning application if concern is expressed either by the planning officer or in observations made by local people.
I accept that the Government have made considerable concessions and that they have improved matters. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing that they are prepared to go even further and accept the new clause.

Mr. Steen: The Minister will know that, in Committee, I expressed my concern about the way in which agricultural buildings under 5,000 sq ft could be put up without any planning consent being given. I emphasised the problems that I face in south Devon where a few farmers—I stress that it is only a few—have cocked a snook at the planning system and have put up agricultural buildings of 5,000 sq ft and under in very sensitive areas. One is on the heritage coastline, right on the edge of the cliff, and can be seen for miles around. Another was sited in the most sensitive of all areas, on the banks of the river Dart. It is a white concrete structure that can be seen for miles around and a long way up the river. The farmer in question said that he used it to store apples. Only two weekends ago a third building of just under 5,000 sq ft was put up at the 850 ft contour—the top of the hill is at 860 ft—just above Totnes Cross, a landmark that can be seen for miles around. We are not quite sure of the purpose for which the building is intended but, to many people for miles around, it is a tremendous eyesore. It does not do the countryside any good, it certainly does not do tourism any good and it ruins the quality and value of the landscape.
I should stress that the majority of farmers throughout the country and in south Devon are highly responsible, admirable people who have the highest regard for the environment and the countryside and would not dream of acting in that way. A few rogue farmers, however, have put the whole profession in a bad light.
The Government rightly decided that something would have to be done about the problem, even though a minority rather than a majority of farmers were involved. I am delighted that, since the Bill left the Standing Committee, the Government have answered at length a question tabled by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in connection with the problem. That answer appeared at column 487 of Hansard on 7 June.
The Government have advanced an ingenious idea. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm that my understanding is correct—the Government are saying that, whenever an agricultural building of whatever size is to be built, the farmer must go to the planning authority and explain that he intends to put up that building on a particular site. I am sure that the planning authorities would never have agreed to the siting of the buildings on the heritage coastline, on the banks of the Dart and at 850 ft above Totnes Cross. The planning authority must then suggest to the farmer an acceptable alternative site on his land. If the farmer is not prepared to accept the decision, he must go to appeal and have the planning inspector hear his case. I want to be clear whether that applies to all buildings, including buildings of 5,000 sq ft and under, and whether it is also relevant to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Am I right in thinking that the whole countryside will be covered by regulations stating that farmers can no longer put up barns without the planning authorities' agreement to the site?
New clause 18 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who is unfortunately attending a Select Committee at present. He informs me that there are four farms in Harrow, East and he is concerned about the problem to which I have drawn the attention of the House. He has told me that, if I have it right, and no more farm buildings will spring up on sensitive sites, as they have in south Devon, he would not wish to press the new clause to a Division. I would not wish to press it either because I think that the Government have done a very good job. I merely want to make sure that I have understood the Government's position correctly and, more important, that my farmers understand it correctly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's confirmation that agricultural buildings under 5,000 sq ft will no longer be built in sensitive places if the planning authorities say that they may not.

5 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): These amendments seek to end the limited permitted development rights for constructing agricultural buildings and farm and forestry roads, so that specific planning permission would be required in every case. New clauses 14 and 18 would end such rights throughout England and Wales and resemble an amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee —both then and now, they reflect the Opposition's traditional hostility to agriculture and a lack of sympathy for the difficult circumstances in which many farmers find themselves today.
I am not sure whether new clause 18 has been moved, but it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and it aims to end permitted development rights for erecting agricultural buildings in national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty, sites of special scientific interest and in other specially designated conservation areas. That would mean that every small change in the line of a farm road and every farm building, however small, would require a full planning application to the local authority. That would be out of proportion, and has not been justified.
However, we take such issues seriously and recognise that there is concern in rural areas, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, is caused by insensitivity on the part of a small number of farmers, who unfortunately tar the agricultural community with their reputation because of the occasional erection of a farm building in an objectionable position.
I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that the two examples that he quoted in his constituency would be completely and satisfactorily dealt with by the changes that the Government propose to make. When we announced a significant extension of planning controls over agricultural buildings and farm and forestry roads last week, we dealt with precisely the sort of problems that he referred to.
For some time, there have been discretionary controls in national parks over permitted development. The White Paper last year proposed to extend the system to other parts of England and Wales as well as to introduce controls over small farm buildings. Following public consultation, we announced that we would not only implement those two proposals but we would go further. In national parks, farmers and foresters already have to


notify the planning authority of all new buildings that they propose to erect under permitted development rights. The authority may then choose to exercise control over the siting, design and external appearance of new buildings on visual amenity grounds. That system works well and we have decided to extend the arrangements to all parts of England and Wales, and to extend the scope of the control.
The new arrangements will cover not only new buildings, as we proposed in the consultation paper, but also significant extensions and alterations, and farm and forestry roads. The considerations to be taken into account by local planning authorities will not be limited to visual aspects, but will extend to the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings, known archaeological sites, the settings of listed buildings, and sites of recognised nature conservation value, including SSSIs.
The new arrangements will be accompanied by guidance to local planning authorities, stressing the importance of reconciling environmental considerations with the operational requirements of farm and forestry business.
The second main strand of our announcement, which has not attracted much controversy in this short debate, is the extension of full development control to all farm holdings of less than five hectares.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I was anxious not to disturb the Minister in the early part of his speech, but I wish to ask him about one aspect of the notification procedure. If there were no agreement between the developer—the farmer—and the planning authority about the siting of a building or road, would the developer have to accept the local authority's point of view? Also, is there any scope for the public to be involved in the procedure, as is the case in a normal planning application?

Mr. Yeo: It is not quite a normal planning application, but the farmer will have to accept the view of the local planning authority. If he cannot reach agreement about where a building should be sited through negotiation and discussion with the authority, he will have to take the matter to the Department of the Environment, to appeal. In that case, he may be able to secure his building.
These proposals will give the local authority adequate controls to prevent farm buildings from being constructed in places which are considered to be objectionable or offensive for any of the reasons that I have given.
Experience in the national parks shows that it is usually possible to reach agreement. Common sense will prevail in the vast majority of cases, and I have every reason to believe that that will turn out to be the case. In the majority of the examples that hon. Members come across, a small alteration in the position or the design of a building will remove most of the objections to it.
I hope that that also deals with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. Any farm building and some extensions will now be covered by these new proposals. Therefore, a farmer who intends to undertake such development will effectively be brought under control as regards the position and design of the buildings.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate.
The Minister is referring to the effect of the new legislation in England and Wales. Can he confirm that similar changes will apply in Scotland, since his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting beside him?

Mr. Yeo: In Scotland, the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper on 15 February.

Mr. Home Robertson: Not another.

Mr. Yeo: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, we are the listening Government. The paper invited views on the position throughout Scotland. Responses are still being considered and the Scottish Office is unable to announce its conclusions yet. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have noted the matters that have been raised from both sides of the House in this debate and I hope that they will be reflected in the decision that his Department reaches in due course.
These measures will provide more effective control over development of all kinds associated with agricultural holdings. They will produce substantial environmental benefits and will ensure that the rural economy can continue to prosper and to make its own contribution to the quality of the environment, while controlling those effects of agricultural and forestry development that are potentially damaging to that environment. They represent a significant extension of local authority controls over agriculture and forestry, and we look to local authorities to operate them sensibly and efficiently. We will monitor the operation of the new system carefully. We intend to review the position in three years, with a view to making any further modifications shown to be necessary, either by increasing or by reducing control.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister explain how he will let local authorities know? What will be the process—a circular or a general practice note—and how soon will they know?

Mr. Yeo: We shall advise local authorities about the new arrangements with a planning policy guidance note, which will not only set out exactly what is required, but will offer some help as to how the rules are to be interpreted.
In the light of my remarks and due to the fact that the proposals will be subject to review in three years' time, I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend will decide to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I thoroughly welcome the statement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made. The Government have struck an entirely sensible balance between giving proper importance to environmental considerations—in line with their policy on the environment—and commitment to preserving a balanced way in the countryside. They have been fully aware of the pressures on farmers and the need not to make constraints upon them too onerous. The ball is now in the farmers' court; it is up to them to come up with a sensible proposed siting and to discuss it with the local authorities. If it is not found to be suitable at that stage farmers will have to be flexible when finding a proper balanced solution, thus avoiding the need to go to appeal. That view will be


welcomed on both sides of the House, especially by hon. Members who represent shire counties. It is a major step forward and is most welcome.

Mr. Home Robertson: Again I apologise for the fact that I was not present for the earlier part of the debate. This is an important issue. I represent a largely rural constituency. I have always thought it absurd that householders require planning permission for even the most minor alterations to their houses—a dormer window or a porch—whereas farmers are able to erect very large and sometimes unsightly buildings without needing anyone's consent.
I refer briefly in passing to a problem that afflicts my constituency. Developers are acquiring whole farms and, in effect, asset stripping them by turning rows of cottages, or old farm buildings, into houses because they have a fast track to getting planning permission for that purpose. It is a very profitable exercise. There is a market for such properties within commuting distance of Edinburgh. However, it is undermining the rural economy and destroying long-established farming units. There is a need for more effective control over that change of use of farming units. That point ought to be taken into account in any Scottish Office review into the planning procedures that affect such buildings.

Mr. Win Griffiths: As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the Government's concessions. They represent an improvement. Nevertheless, there are two matters that still worry me and, I know, very many other people.
First, the Minister made glowing references to the experience of the national parks. When national park officers were consulted, seven out of nine of the national park authorities said that they wanted proper planning controls. However well the Government may think the system is working, there is an element of disquiet. The vast majority of national park authorities would like proper planning permission to prevail.

Mr. Yeo: I acknowledge that the majority of national park officers have stated their preference for full planning controls, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that they have said that they feel that the notification system now in operation provides a rapid, relatively cheap and non-controversial method of control over the visual impact of developments.

Mr. Griffiths: I readily acknowledge that that has been said, but it has to be placed in the context of their preference for full planning permission to prevail.
As for the negotiation procedures, it is generally reckoned that the planning permission process need be no longer than the average time taken in private negotiations. As we believe that proper planning control is needed, and also an opportunity for public participation when particularly controversial proposals are notified to the local planning authority, we should like the will of the House to be tested in a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 299.

Division No. 180]
[5.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)





Barron, Kevin
Livingstone, Ken


Battle, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beckett, Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Bell, Stuart
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Macdonald, Calum A.


Blunkett, David
McFall, John


Boyes, Roland
McKelvey, William


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McMaster, Gordon


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Marek, Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Cartwright, John
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meacrter, Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Corbett, Robin
Morgan, Rhodri


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morley, Elliot


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cox, Tom
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan
Mullin, Chris


Cryer, Bob
Murphy, Paul


Dalyell, Tarn
Nellist, Dave


Darling, Alistair
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Prescott, John


Eadie, Alexander
Primarolo, Dawn


Edwards, Huw
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Reid, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Richardson, Jo


Fisher, Mark
Robertson, George


Flynn, Paul
Robinson, Geoffrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Foulkes, George
Rooney, Terence


Fyfe, Maria
Rowlands, Ted


Galbraith, Sam
Salmond, Alex


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Sheerman, Barry


George, Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Clare


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Graham, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Spearing, Nigel


Hinchliffe, David
Strang, Gavin


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Straw, Jack


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Turner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Wareing, Robert N.


Hoyle, Doug
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wilson, Brian


Illsley, Eric
Winnick, David


Janner, Greville
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeslde)
Worth ington, Tony


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wray, Jimmy


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fearn, Ronald


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bellotti, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boswell, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Ground, Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
(Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carr, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine





Kennedy, Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkwood, Archy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Livsey, Richard
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Marlow, Tony
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wallace, James


Mudd, David
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Walters, Sir Dennis


Neubert, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, Sir John


Norris, Steve
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 16

COMPENSATION FOR WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH RAILWAYS

`.—After section 27 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Execution of works etc. in connection with public works) there is inserted—


"27A.—(1) The Secretary of State may compensate any person with a qualifying interest in land the enjoyment of which will in his opinion be seriously or injuriously affected by the carrying out of works or the use of public works or the intensification of operations by or in connection with the activities of the British Railways Board.
(2) In the section 'qualifying interest' has the meaning given in section 149(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
(3) In this section the power to compensate includes the power to acquire by agreement property at a value established by reference to the value of the property which would have obtained if the relevant operations had not been subject to intensification.
(4) Save as provided in subsection (3) the provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Compensation for depreciation caused by use of public works) shall apply to compensation paid under this section.".'.—[Sir J. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir John Stanley: (Tonbridge and Mailing): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Although the new clause has been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members of different parties who represent constituencies in London, Kent and Surrey, it raises an aspect of compensation policy which is of considerable importance to any constituency, wherever it is located, if, like ours, it faces a quantum leap in noise levels from the railways as a result of a different type of train which will travel with much greater frequency on the existing railway system. The issue that we are about to debate will be seen to be a part of general compensation policy, not one that flows from the channel tunnel project.
The problem faced by our constituents can be stated relatively simply. The Government have so far been unable —or unwilling—to agree to the construction of a new high-speed line from London to the channel tunnel portal. Therefore, it is inescapable that for at least five years after the channel tunnel opens in 1993, all through international passenger and freight trains to and from the continent will travel on the existing designated railway system between London and the continent. They will travel especially on two lines—the main line that has been used by the previous boat train service through Tonbridge down to Ashford, and the secondary line through Maidstone east.
The implications for people who have properties close to the railway lines are little short of disastrous, because the increase in usage, especially at night, will have drastic effects. At present, virtually no use is made of the Tonbridge to Ashford line at night. Equally, there is really no use of the Maidstone east line at night.
According to British Rail's own forecast of the international freight traffic alone, international freight trains about half a mile long and travelling at about 75 mph will take at least half a minute to pass a given point which, as far as our constituents are concerned, will be their bedroom windows, which may be a few metres from the railway line. The trains will pass by about every 20 minutes throughout the night from 10 pm to 6 am. They will pass every night of the week, every week of the year.

I am happy to say that it will affect relatively few people who are unfortunate enough to have property alongside the designated channel tunnel routes.
5.30 pm
New clause 16 seeks to deal with that problem by conferring on my right and hon. learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport two discretionary powers. The first power would enable him voluntarily to acquire, with the agreement of the owner, homes that are seriously affected by the build-up of rail traffic. In practice, I would expect that power to be used in the case of houses that have, to all intents and purposes, been rendered valueless and uninhabitable by the rail traffic build-up. My hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly visited a house in my constituency, which I believe that he will agree will be rendered effectively valueless.
The second power is a discretionary power to apply the injurious affection provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to those houses that are not made totally uninhabitable but whose value is seriously affected. Those two powers will provide a sensible and fair answer to the problem.
The House may ask, what are the objections to new clause 16? I shall anticipate two arguments that may be used by my hon. Friend the Minister. The first argument —he would be ill-advised to use it—is that compensation is paid only in relation to new works and not in the case of intensification of existing use. He may claim that this is an example of intensification of existing use and that, therefore, compensation cannot be paid. That argument cannot run. To try to pretend that the build-up of rail traffic as a result of the channel tunnel is simply an intensification of existing use without any new works does not accord with reality. There are massive new works which are making it possible for the intensification to occur.
At one end of the line we have the biggest single new work that has ever been undertaken by the British civil engineering industry—the channel tunnel. It will link the entire continental rail system with the British rail system. That is a pretty good new work. At the other end we have the £150 million new work taking place at Waterloo station. Some of us went to see it the other day. There is a new international terminal with five new platforms, each a quarter of a mile long, to take the new international passenger trains. There is a massive new work between Tonbridge and Redhill where the line is being electrified to take the international freight trains. Mile upon mile of continuous rail is being installed, bridges are being reconstructed, there is tremendous investment in new signalling and track is being reconstructed. My right hon. Friend the Minister recently confirmed in a parliamentary answer that, even ignoring the cost of the channel tunnel, the associated rail works to enable the channel tunnel trains to travel on the existing designated routes will total £700 million. By every possible argument, major new works are involved and the issue cannot be dismissed as simply an intensification of existing use.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend suggested that if the Government had been able or had wished to approve a new line, some of the problems might have been avoided. Is it not the case that British Rail has


stubbornly persisted in its view that there is no need for a new freight line and that, therefore, our constituents will be subjected to this burden for the foreseeable future?

Sir John Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Rail's proposals, which as far as we know have not yet been accepted by the Government, envisage a new line for passenger traffic only. Therefore, the problem will arise for freight.
My hon. Friend the Minister may concede my first point about intensification of existing use. The real issue is what type of new works should trigger an entitlement to compensation. My hon. Friend the Minister may fall back on a second line of resistance. He may say, "Yes, I acknowledge that there are major new works but, I am afraid, the works are of the wrong type. In a road scheme no compensation is payable unless there is a new road or a new carriageway to an existing road. In this case, by and large, there is no new track and compensation cannot be paid." If my hon. Friend is tempted to use that argument, I hope that he will think again. An analogy between the compensation problem for railways and the compensation problem for a road scheme is wholly bogus because the railway noise profile is totally different from that of a highway. The noise profile is critical. It is that which depreciates the value of homes and possibly creates the entitlement to compensation.
I invite the House to consider the noise profile of an international freight or passenger train. First there is a total silence. Then, from a very faint noise, there is a gradual crescendo, which builds to an intense noise for those whose homes are right by the railway line. That noise is sustained for at least half a minute as the train passes. The noise then diminishes back into total silence until the next train in about 15 minutes or so. That is not the noise profile of a passing car or lorry or of continuous traffic from a highway scheme. That noise profile approximates to that of an aircraft. The passage of an aircraft overhead is the correct analogy for the problem facing our constituents.
When we consider this as an issue of compensation policy in relation not to a highway scheme, where the analogy is false, but to aircraft, a different perspective emerges. As I hope to demonstrate, existing practice for civil and military aircraft is wholly in line with what we propose in new clause 16. We are not asking the Department of Transport to take a radical step forward or to create a dangerous new precedent. We are asking the Department to bring itself into line with the practice of those operating civil and military airfields and accept the same responsibility to householders in the vicinity of railway lines as is already accepted by those operators.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Before my right hon. Friend extends the theme a little further, will he confirm that the problem with the noise profile will be worse during the day and evening? The noise from passing trains will not be confined to office hours from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock at night but will continue through the night. On returning from work to home, where people want to enjoy their leisure and rest, owners will find that the noise profile is distinctly disturbing and wrecks their tranquil hours.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend is correct. There will be noise disturbances on a 24-hour basis. My hon. Friend's

point is extremely telling, not least because there is a ban on night-time flying by civil aircraft. Our constituents will be in a worse position than those affected by civil flights.
I remind the House of the two key powers that are available under new clause 16—the power to set up a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of houses that are, in effect, made valueless and the power to pay injurious affection compensation.
I have considered the existing practice of civil aviation operators and the Ministry of Defence. On the civil side, I start with the issue of a voluntary acquisition scheme. Sir Norman Payne, the chairman of the British Airports Authority plc, has confirmed to me that BAA already operates a voluntary acquisition programme for houses seriously affected by noise from BAA airports, whereby those home owners who wish to sell are bought out for an amount equivalent to the unblighted value of their homes. Ironically, that power was made possible only by the Government's action in privatising the British Airports Authority. It would be sad and paradoxical if, having introduced those powers in relation to civil aircraft, the Government resisted introducing similar powers to cover those who are equally seriously affected by railway noise.
Sir Norman Payne confirmed in his letter that injurious affection compensation was payable. In respect of what new works is it payable by BAA? My hon. Friend the Minister may be under the impression that injurious affection compensation is payable only where there is the equivalent of new track—a new runway or an extension of an existing runway.
Sir Norman Payne confirmed that BAA is willing to pay injurious affection compensation where new works stop short of a new runway or an extension of an existing runway. As that point is fundamental, I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the key sentence in Sir Norman Payne's letter, and I ask hon. Members to consider in particular the end of that sentence. Sir Norman Payne said:
With regard to injurious affection compensation BAA's airports, in common with all other airports in the United Kingdom, are liable to pay compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 where the value of property has diminished as a result of physical factors, including noise, vibration, smell, fumes and artificial lighting, resulting from any works at the airports which involve the construction, realignment, extension or strengthening of an existing runway"—
and this is the crucial passage—
or substantial additions to or alterations of taxiways or aprons where those additions or alterations are designed to provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft.
5.45 pm
In other words, injurious affection compensation is triggered by new works which may necessarily fall short of a new runway or an extension to an existing runway but which provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft. Those of us who tabled new clause 16 argue strongly that that is precisely the position with which we are dealing —major new works which provide facilities for much greater use of railway lines by international trains.
I turn to the defence sector and military aircraft. I can speak with a little first-hand experience because I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces when the Ministry of Defence had to deal with this problem in relation to military aircraft. A massive increase in noise was predicted at an airfield, resulting in those with homes nearby finding the value of their homes, if not destroyed, at least seriously


reduced. The airfield was RAF Leeming in north Yorkshire, which at that time was a training airfield, deploying Bulldog basic trainers and Jet Provost trainers, which are the first trainers used in converting to flying jet aircraft. They are relatively small and not particularly noisy aircraft.
It was decided to use RAF Leeming as one of the main operational bases for Tornados in this country. That occasion mirrored the present situation with channel tunnel trains. A new type of aircraft was deployed, with much longer hours of operation and causing much greater noise disturbance.
The House will not be surprised to hear, perhaps, that our policy response was precisely the same as the provisions in new clause 16. We introduced a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of those houses most seriously affected by noise and injurious affection compensation. I am glad to be able to tell the House, because of written answers given to me by my successor, the present Minister of State for the Armed Forces, that the principles that we applied to RAF Leeming have been applied to a considerable number of other RAF airfields where the same problem has arisen. On 3 June, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the voluntary acquisition scheme applied at Stornoway, Leeming, Upper Heyford, Fairford and Yeovilton and that injurious affection compensation applied at Upper Heyford, Leuchars, Cottesmore, Coningsby, Marham, Wattisham, Honington, Leeming and Yeovilton.
What new works triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation at RAF Leeming? There was no new runway or extension to the existing runway. There was no new taxiway or new apron. The new works were of a different variety, but they still triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation.
I hope that I have been able to show that the principle in new clause 16 is well precedented in relation to aircraft and we should draw the parallel with a passing aircraft. There is a precedent for a voluntary acquisition scheme at the unblighted value of a property. There is a precedent for the operation of an injurious affection compensation scheme where there is intensification of existing use accompanied by new works, but where those works do not necessitate the construction of a new runway or railway track.
Although the Department of Transport may claim that the principle is difficult and dangerous, we are asking the Department and British Rail to accept the same degree of responsibility for folk, the value of whose houses may have been devastated, as is already accepted by the operators of civil airfields and by the MOD.
Ultimately we must consider the individuals concerned. We must ask whether it is fair and reasonable with regard to a channel tunnel project that is required in the national interest that relatively small numbers of people should have the value of their main asset destroyed or substantially reduced as a result of the construction of that project and the proper utilisation of the tunnel by rail traffic. We believe that that is unreasonable. The Government must act to ensure that that injustice is rectified. Justice would be done under new clause 16 and therefore I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful, as other hon. Members must be, for the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and

Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in tabling his new clause and seeking to discover whether there is widespread support for it. He does not need to look far for such support. Since 1986, hon. Members have been aware of the concern expressed by their constituents about the effect of the current policy on the construction of railways and the issue of compensation. New clause 16, which has cross-party support, is an attempt to rectify the unfair balance in favour of the national interest, to the great detriment of private interests.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a carefully argued and persuasive point about the precedent for his proposition, which is already adopted by the Government. I will not elaborate on that, as the right hon. Gentleman quoted chapter and verse in respect of two clear and obvious examples. He also stated clearly that the best parallel lies not with road traffic, but with other forms of transport which have comparable effects on the residential population and on householders.
My first point is obvious, but it underlines the importance of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has just said. The cost of a channel tunnel link —or a similar railway route—is shared among many taxpayers. It is spread abroad among those who contribute to the public purse. If someone is not adequately compensated, probably his largest asset is lost, and that may have a catastrophic effect on that family and its wealth. There is an inordinate and disproportionate unfairness in the way in which one could attribute the cost of what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.
Under new clause 16, the public purse would compensate or permit compensation at the objectively assessed value for loss suffered by anyone who, in the public interest, must pay the personal price of forfeiting his home in total, or the benefit of the value of that home as it was before the scheme was proposed.
We should address the issue now, not later. As the Minister for Public Transport is aware, there have been a couple of false starts in relation to the channel tunnel route. I do not want to make a prejudicial point about that; I heard the Minister on the radio this morning refer to the timetable. British Rail has had a rethink and has produced a proposal about the options for the channel tunnel rail link from its agreed end point in Kent to London. It has produced a preferred option which is on the Secretary of State's desk, and the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport are considering the options.
Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State confirmed to me that, when the Government select an option, they will consult about the environmental implications. We all come to this debate unaware of the proposal. We come to argue from a point of principle. I hope that it is accepted that this is not a NIMBY argument. It should not be. None of us would like to see such problems occur whether or not they affected our constituents, constituents in our local authority areas—as applies in my case—or constituents more widely. It is a matter of public policy. We are not praying for exceptional treatment for people who may be affected by the proposal for the channel tunnel link, but in the immediate future the problems are likely to apply to those affected by the channel tunnel link.
The issue has political significance because this kind of issue—a proposal made or endorsed by the Government —will affect the Government supporters who may be criticised if the proposal does not compensate their


constituents adequately. The channel tunnel link will affect the south east and the majority of the constituencies affected have Conservative Members. Only a handful of seats in inner London held by Labour Members will be affected, as will my constituency. Quite rightly, Conservative Members will hope to persuade the Government of the political and the personal significance of the case.
In a way, the new clause is a minimalist proposal. I tabled the same proposition in relation to underground works in new clause 23. My new clause raises the same issue, but relates to different legislation. The Minister for Public Transport is aware that proposals currently before the House to construct new underground lines raise similar issues. It is not simply a matter of which property is to be demolished: the issue relates also to which properties are affected by existing activity or by intensification of activity.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, if the general argument is acceptable, it is logical that the provisions should apply to those who are affected in any way by railway works, whether they are above or below ground. The similarity between the railways and the channel tunnel proposal will be the closer because the latter will also be underground in London, although it will be above ground in outer London and Kent.
6 pm
As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, the present law is anomalous. That has happened not as a matter of public policy but because of the failure of legislation to catch up with what should be the natural justice principle. As a result, some people have suffered disproportionately and in a particular way, while others have not suffered at all. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as the new clause proposes, we are most concerned to ensure that we include in the "powers to compensate" provisions those who are suffering from an intensification of works as opposed to the commencement of new works only. Their previous omission from the compensation provisions is the most obvious anomaly, but there are others.
I have in mind the case of two constituents, living in neighbouring properties. One has been told that he will be compensated because he works at home, while the neighbour will not be compensated because his home is not his place of work. They live in similar and adjacent properties, but the law does not treat them the same. That is unfair.
This may be Parliament's last opportunity on this Bill to amend the existing law. Given that Ministers normally have a greater ability than other hon. Members to find technical defects in proposed provisions, the Minister may well do so. However, even if there are technical defects in the new clause, and even if it does not go as widely as some of us would wish, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government now accept the principle of compensating people for any loss—objectively assessed—in the value of their property as a result of railway proposals that would be a public benefit and increase the use of the railways.
I hope that principle will be accepted now, before the consequences become particular to certain constituencies

and their Members of Parliament. I hope that it will be accepted as a matter of general principle to apply across the United Kingdom and in all such cases from now on.
I think that I am right in saying that this question will not go away if the Minister finds, for whatever reason, that it is not possible to accept even that proposition. That is not an unreal threat, because the problem affects many people's largest investment. Effectively, everything that people have built up as their community, home and base could be at risk if we do not amend the law.
For many people today, the most worrying thing, in any political agenda, is whether, as a result of legislation and Government policy decisions in the coming months, they will lose their home or a significant part of its value. That could finish those people, and it should not be acceptable as a matter of public policy. I hope that the Government will accept that the new clause gives us all a way off this hook and out of this dilemma. It is a straightforward principle of justice, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Wolfson: I start by congratulating my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), on so clearly outlining the case for the new clause. That it was masterly is no surprise.
I should like to comment specifically and briefly on two or three of my right hon. Friend's points. The new clause deals with compensation policy as a whole and could provide a way of dealing fairly with relatively few people. It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power. It was important that my right hon. Friend drew an analogy with airports rather than roads because that is the proper comparison. As we know, there are currently tight controls on night flying at airports. We know, equally, that the channel tunnel will not operate effectively if similar night controls are applied. As my right hon. Friend said, night trains will be running and that fact pushes up the agenda the crucial importance of properly looking after those relatively few people whose lives will be seriously damaged by them.
If ever the small man needed the protection of Parliament, it is upon the issue that new clause 16 addresses. The Englishman's home is his castle, but for the great majority of the population it is also his, or her, main —and often sole—investment. We should not forget those who rent, for whom the security of their own home, in known surroundings, in a settled community and among familiar sights and sounds is a large part of what makes life worthwhile. I ask hon Members to think of their own home—their families and their own feelings for it—in relation to what I have just said. Are those things not true for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they are for all of us?
It is for those reasons that the prospect of a sudden and dramatic change in the level of rail traffic—immediately the channel tunnel opens, on the lines that run through my constituency and those of other hon. Members representing Kent, but possibly in other parts of the country in the future—is causing such understandable alarm and dismay. Householders who live close to the existing rail lines—Maidstone to Swanley, Tonbridge to Redhill, and the line from Tonbridge to Sevenoaks and then direct to London—have up to now been little troubled by rail traffic, especially at night. Daytime activity is not great at the moment on two of those lines, which will be used for British Rail freight for the foreseeable future. The trains


are relatively slow and short. Until recent years, disturbance between the night hours of 11 pm and 6 am has been minimal. They are quiet lines.
The sale of houses had not, therefore, been much affected by proximity to the railway. Indeed, within the past five years new houses have been built at Swanky right under the embankment and, in the past, have sold well and readily. That was because the line was relatively little used. Now, all that is horribly changed. Those houses and others similarly situated are blighted. Individuals have had their lives disrupted. Their retirement or job change plans have been aborted, causing real worry and sometimes serious distress. And why? Not because they have made any mistakes or even errors of financial judgment themselves; not because the national housing market has been flat and not because their neighbourhood is old or run down—for none of those reasons. The blight has been caused by a factor quite outside their own control, let alone their ability to foresee.
On the day the channel tunnel opens, British Rail will inevitably make a quantum leap in the volume of trains using those lines night and day. Trains will be more frequent, longer and heavier. They will also be noisier and cause more vibration. Whatever the improvements that can be achieved by welded rails and modern rolling stock, international freight trains running through the night on previously empty tracks will be the cause of major and unacceptable disturbance.
Controls exist to minimise disturbance from night flights at airports. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has said, rail disturbance could be similar for some houses. Radical measures are therefore essential to mitigate the injurious effects that may be suffered, and that is what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.
As the law stands, when new railways are built, however short, or when an additional track is laid alongside a railway to widen the line, this counts as new development and compensation may be paid to those who are affected. In my constituency a new loop line is being constructed to allow a stationary train to be overtaken —in other words, a train parking line. Compensation may be payable to people who are affected. Yet to those who suffer from the vastly increased use of an existing line no compensation is available. In an age when environmental issues, quality of life and noise control measures are high on the social and political agenda, that position is unacceptable to me, to my constituents and, increasingly, it will be unacceptable to the nation as a whole.
It has already been said that this issue will not go away. The law must be changed to give householders who are injuriously affected, or whose enjoyment is seriously affected by an intensification of the use of existing lines, the opportunity to be treated in a way similar to those who live beside new works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing argued clearly and eloquently that the development of rail traffic from the channel tunnel to London can be described as new development. That was one of the points that he made. The other and most important one—I finish where I began—was that the nuisance should be equated with that of airport noise, not with that of roads.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) analysed with great clarity the problem, outlined the planning principles and procedures which are relevant to

it, and suggested a practical solution to alleviate the difficulties of disturbance and nuisance, loss of amenity and environmental damage which will arise for those who live near lines, the use of which is intensified, particularly by the passage of freight trains during unsocial hours.
I cannot add to or better what my right hon. Friend said but I am prompted to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Dulwich area who will be affected by the increase in the use of the West Dulwich line from Sydenham Hill through West Dulwich station to Herne Hill and also of the East Dulwich line which runs through Peckham and Denmark Hill to Loughborough junction and takes in the Warwick gardens area. My constituents face not only the threat of intensification of use but the blight that lies on all properties in the area as a result of British Rail's ill-conceived high-speed passenger link. In those circumstances, the time is right to consider the high-speed link, whether it covers freight and passengers or only passengers, and to determine what compensation should be available to those who are injuriously affected.
I speak not only for myself today. I have been asked to say that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), whose duties do not allow him to participate in the debate but who nevertheless shares the problems that I face. To alleviate the problem that lies with my constituents and, indeed, those of my hon. Friend, we need a proper compensation package which deals with this new threat and the problem that arises as a result of the intensification of use. There is no doubt that if British Rail persists in planning to pass freight traffic over existing commuter passenger lines, the problem will be greatly intensified beyond what is predicted.
Another issue perhaps runs beyond the scope of this debate but is relevant to it. There is an urgent and immediate need for a dedicated freight route to take freight off the passenger lines of south-east London, perhaps via the route that has been suggested through north-east Kent, crossing the Thames at Dartford, south-east Essex and on to the remainder of the United Kingdom beyond the capital. That issue and the issue of compensation cannot properly be separated. We must consider a dedicated freight route to take the majority of freight which is not destined for the capital. That would reduce the amount of freight that travels on existing lines.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend describes the Thurrock route. Does he agree that an alternative for freight is to take it, as it were, left of London from Tonbridge, via Redhill and Reading and that way? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is insane to push the main bulk of our freight through the already crowded lines of south London.

Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend is right. It is crazy to consider that the only way to transport freight from the channel tunnel through to London or the rest of the United Kingdom is by pushing it through the bottleneck of London on passenger lines which go through built-up areas, over viaducts and bridges and near houses, with all the danger that that involves. There have been several disasters in the past few years in which trains have come off the rails and done great damage, not only to those travelling in them but to those who live near the lines. It is imperative to create a dedicated freight route. If we had


that, the amount of freight that travelled on the lines that we are discussing today would be reduced. If we used the other line, which my hon. Friend suggested, the amount would be even smaller. A dedicated freight route would also reduce the intensification of traffic which is threatened by the present proposal.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to produce a package that not only meets the need to convey freight but recognises that those who live near freight or passenger routes that will carry freight must be compensated for the loss that they will sustain. They will suffer loss in the value of their property, loss of amenity, damage to the environment and loss of quality in their lives.

Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to current speculation about the route to be taken by the channel tunnel fast link. We know that papers are on the Minister's desk. Many of us in south London hope that they will be published sooner rather than later so that at least we know the worst or the best.
One thing is clear. During the time between the opening of the channel tunnel and the completion of the fast link —along whatever route—there will be very much more traffic on existing routes, because it will not be able to go anywhere else. Whereas the fast link and its construction will be covered by completely fresh legislation which is likely to include compensation, environmental protection and other requirements, there are no requirements, either legal or moral, for British Rail to recognise the effect of the increased traffic along the existing routes, especially between the inner parts of Kent and central London.
I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on raising this issue and putting the case so effectively. I do not intend to protract the proceedings by speaking at length, but I have to take issue with my right hon. Friend on one point. At two stages in his otherwise admirable speech, he referred to the effect of intensified traffic on, in his words, "relatively few properties". It may be relatively few properties in his constituency, and perhaps in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), but in suburban London in, for example, the London borough of Bromley—all four Members of Parliament who have constituencies in that borough are present in the Chamber—it is not relatively few properties but scores or hundreds of properties that will be affected.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the time to come to Bromley and see for himself how close some properties are to existing lines, the effect of present train traffic and the effect that much more intensified traffic will have. My hon. Friends and I have files of letters that we could show the Minister from people who have houses adjacent to railway lines and who are naturally concerned about the effect of much more intensive use of the lines.
It can be argued that if one buys a house with a railway line at the bottom of the garden, one would expect trains to use it. That is a perfectly fair argument, but we are considering an increase in the use of lines that was entirely unforeseen. No doubt it will be argued that they are not new lines, but existing ones and literally that must be so. However, let us bear in mind that the existing lines will link up with the channel tunnel and, in turn, with the entire rail

network of continental Europe. If that is not the construction of a new line, what is? It is a completely new network.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not fall back on the argument that they are not new lines. It is a completely new network and was unforeseen by anybody buying property except, perhaps, by those buying in very recent years. Most of my constituents have lived in their properties for 10, 20 or 30 years and more and could not possibly have foreseen the increase in traffic.
It is not the first time that this type of issue has been debated in Parliament. There is a British Railways (No. 3) Bill, involving works along the line, which will no doubt come before the House in the fullness of time. The House will be aware that it has already been discussed in another place. A House of Lords Select Committee issued a report on the Bill and the various petitions that were presented, which included petitions from Kent county council and Bromley borough council.
The special report on the Bill from the Lords Select Committee said:
The Committee have very considerable sympathy with the predicament of the Petitioners and others who live alongside the railway that will be used by traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel.
It is worth noting that the Committee accepts
that there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens.
The report then considers how the matter should be dealt with and whether it is appropriate to deal with it through the British Railways (No. 3) Bill. The Committee adds that the provisions
would be better dealt with by general legislation
and it recommends that
the Government give urgent consideration to the question of compensation for those directly affected by major and relatively sudden intensification of the use of existing railway lines. This is a national problem, requiring national solutions".
We have a solution at hand in this Bill. The insertion of the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing would deal with the problem, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Roger Moate: I recall taking part in the proceedings on the Land Compensation Act 1973. I was very proud that a Conservative Government was introducing a long-overdue measure to extend compensation to individuals who would suffer in the public interest as a result of major road developments. I am also proud that this Bill goes a long way in handing out justice to individuals, especially those likely to suffer the loss of their homes because of public works. The extra compensation due to them is generous and fair, albeit overdue.
We are discussing another major step that should be taken to offer justice to individuals whose homes are likely to be damaged in some way or other because the public interest decrees that there should be major public works. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the point that was made earlier—it is not an issue that will go away. We are discussing an important principle, and if it is not resolved by the Bill it will come back time and again, especially during our proceedings on the high-speed link.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help the House and the country by at least conceding the principle—and, I hope, accepting the new clause moved eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). It has been pointed


out that it is not a NIMBY—not in my backyard—proposal. Many hon. Members from Kent and other areas that could be affected are present, but many others are too. The point is that we do not know where the high-speed link will go. It could be any one of a number of routes. It could be in Essex, Kent or south London. I favour the Ove Arup route, but I recognise that if that is selected many people in Essex will be affected. If some of the more far-fetched Labour schemes come to fruition, we shall have high-speed links all over the country and many householders will be affected by new railway development.
We are dealing with a major principle which could affect many areas. I therefore hope that the House will treat it as a national issue and that we shall not leave those constituencies which are ultimately affected forlornly to fight their own corner when a private or hybrid. Bill is introduced. I hope that the House will speak for the people and treat the issue as a matter of principle, wherever new railway lines go.
In the meantime, long before consideration of a high-speed link, there was a major generation of new traffic on existing routes as a result of the channel tunnel. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister on the radio this morning and he was challenged on when we would have a high-speed link and asked whether anything would be in place by the time the channel tunnel opened. I was a bit disappointed again by his reply and I have yet to hear British Rail proclaim that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993 there will be a high-speed link in existence so that people can travel directly from Waterloo to Paris or Brussels in roughly three hours. I am surprised that we continue to hide our light under a bushel and allow our railways to be denigrated by failing to remind people that nearly £1,500 million has been spent to ensure that when the tunnel opens one can take a fast rail link from London to the major capitals of Europe. The corollary is that those trains will run on existing lines.
The lines in Kent that have been mentioned will be used by high-speed trains on a scale which has not been experienced before. It is also significant that British Rail has pointed out it can operate a considerable amount of capacity which is not used at the moment to cope with the extra freight traffic that it hopes to attract through the tunnel. That traffic will travel on existing routes, not just during the day, but at night as well. Many of our constituents will be facing noise and traffic on a scale that they have never previously experienced. It might be rightly decreed that that is in the national interest, and so be it, but the national interest will also accept that people suffering from the intensification of noise on that scale should receive some help and compensation. We are not asking for very much. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling is modest.
In some cases a house close to a line where there is major intensification of day and night-time traffic could lose a great deal of its value, but I suspect that in most cases we are talking about the need for noise insulation and the like. I do not believe for one moment that the British people or hon. Members would deny the justice of extending to such individuals the right to receive some assistance by way of noise insulation or compensation for loss of value if that arose. That is the principle that the House should and must endorse today. Just as Kent Members speak in a united way for the county of Kent, I hope that others will also speak much more broadly in the national interest.
So often great national projects take much longer than necessary, and vastly longer than they do in other countries, fundamentally because we are mean-minded in our approach to compensation. How much more readily would people accept proposals such as this if compensation was reasonably generous. If the country knew that there would be reasonable noise insulation and some compensation for those who suffer from rail projects such as this, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Minister and others would find it much easier to get such projects on the statute book and constructed much more quickly. It is in the interests of the project as well as in the interests of justice that the new clause on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing spoke so eloquently should be accepted.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has made a powerful and convincing case for new clause 16, which I accept and wish to support. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has put the argument for a constituency such as mine, which neighbours the constituency of my hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not feel called upon to delay the debate unnecessarily.
We are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance, so I hope that the Government will not say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for deciding such a matter. Great events often turn upon comparatively small things, especially in relation to the House. This is a way in which the matter can be determined without all the palaver, delays, commissions of inquiry and so on which often go into deciding matters of great moments.
We are dealing with what may well be a change in the attitude of Government towards public works. No longer, as may have been the case in the 19th century, can public utilities expect statutory permission to execute works which, while in accordance with statutory duties, nevertheless do great harm to private individuals. We have passed that stage in our history. There should now be a balance between the interests of a statutory undertaking, whether it be British Rail or any other, and the interests of private housholders. That is the situation with which new clause 16 deals.
Whether or not the rail link goes through Bromley, the use of existing tracks through Bromley and my constituency will intensify. Already, not only due to the recession and the recent, I hope temporary, fall in land values, but because of the expectations of such developments, there has been a fall in property values in areas adjacent to existing railway lines. It is fully expected that those railway lines will be used to an ever greater extent, especially by freight traffic. Freight traffic will travel during the night on occasions and to an extent which has never been experienced before.
Many of my constituents are suffering now from their inability to obtain any sort of compensation for the dramatic fall in values of their properties. There must be a remedy for that, and that remedy is contained in new clause 16. That is why I am happy to support it, and I am anxious that others will do so too.

Mr. Edward Heath: I support most strongly new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), to which I put my name—the first time that my


name has appeared on the Order Paper since March 1975. I have done that because I regard the new clause as vital, first to my constituents and, secondly, to all those who may also be affected either in the Greater London area or in Kent.
But the matter goes much further than that. It is a national question. Those who are looking ahead realise that the channel tunnel will lead to dramatic changes in transport throughout Britain which will affect British Rail going up to Inverness and further. Therefore, we are dealing not just with the present proposals but with what will be the eventual result of the channel tunnel and the resultant changes in transport. That is why I ask the Minister to take a national view and to recognise how wide are the implications of the changes and the way in which the new clause seeks to deal with them.
The effect of the original proposals has been catastrophic in many ways. When rumours first began to circulate about where the line for the fast link would go, people asked, "Are we going to take the chance of it coming here?" When the four alternative plans were produced, the whole area was intensely affected. It was a case of widespread blight. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was quite right—it is not just a question of a few houses; many hundreds of houses are affected by blight.
Although the plans were withdrawn, the blight continues, and my constituents and many others who wish to move for some reason or other—they may receive promotion and have to go to another part of the country, or be offered a new job in another firm further away —cannot do so because they cannot sell their properties. I am constantly being shown lists of people who have applied to view my constituents' properties who, on seeing their position, at once say that it is not on because they do not know what will happen about the railway line. That situation has continued for many months—indeed, years.
I hope that the Minister will try to use his influence with the Secretary of State for Transport to rectify that situation at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that the Department of Transport realises the effect that it is having on individuals in the Kent and London area at this moment.
When it comes to the wider issues of compensation for noise and disturbance and the change in people's lives, the Government would be justified, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, to take not roads but airports as the model on which such compensation should be based. I apologise to the House because I was not here for my right hon. Friend's speech, but I have been able to read it in his notes since I arrived, and he is right in what he said.
If I may cast my mind back, I remember well the problems that arose when the A2 was doubled in order to go into the M2. That went through my constituency. All the problems of noise and disturbance, as well as those created by taking people's land and in some cases their houses, had to be dealt with. It is perfectly true that the two cases are not the same and are not comparable, but if the Government are to offer the valuation plus 10 per cent. for buildings, I welcome that.
The Government have done a good job, but we must remember that 10 per cent. on top of the valuation is what is on offer. In the years when we were dealing with the road that I mentioned before, district valuers were told to offer the lowest possible amount and that, if people did not like the offer, they could get their lawyers to challenge it in the courts. That went on for years; I remember a case in point to do with a piece of land on a corner of the road, which continued for three years. So it is not enough to give compensation plus 10 per cent., because that all depends on what the 10 per cent. is based on. I want district auditors to be told to make an initial offer based on a fair valuation, not on the lowest possible amount which would force people to negotiate in the courts.
Fair offers must not be based on the prices of houses in areas through which the line will pass. When the first plans were produced and the resulting blight was obvious, British Rail offered compensation to a certain number of people who, because they had to move for various reasons, accepted it. After that, the plans were withdrawn, but British Rail was left holding the houses—which it sold at knockdown prices. That has clearly affected the price of housing in the area in my constituency through which the line runs. It is not good enough to use the knockdown sale prices offered by British Rail as a basis. The properties must be correctly valued in line with house prices before British Rail's sales, since when house prices have changed considerably.
This is the only way to remove resentment, although 10 per cent. does not compare well with what happens in France, where 25 per cent. is added to the valuation. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward, and I hope that valuations of properties will be based on true values.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but is it not true that, the moment a scheme is mooted, blight descends on the properties involved—and that is to the advantage of the district valuer, who can then argue that the prices reflect the uncertainty in the market even though the exact route of the line in question is as yet undecided? That argument then becomes the baseline from which to proceed. I support my right hon. Friend's idea that the very notion of blight depresses house prices. The Government's argument that a 10 per cent. supplement approximates more closely to the true price does not achieve their purpose, which is to secure the purchase of the property and the movement on of people who will not feel aggrieved at having been disadvantaged by prices negotiated as low as possible.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend should not worry about troubling me—I am troubled by all sorts of things. He has put the point that I was trying to make at much greater length and much better than I did. Perhaps the Minister will now take proper notice of it.
Some of my colleagues have said that, when the tunnel opens in 1993, those in the vicinity will be greatly troubled by a vast increase in noise. British Rail argues that nothing can be done about that: that, if people want a railway, they must be prepared for anything to happen and they must put up with it. That is not acceptable, but it is already happening.
In my constituency, the night traffic on British Rail has increased enormously in the past year, largely due to the building of the channel tunnel. We are not being


compensated for that. Buyers coming to the area do not want to pay for houses there, because they can already see the troubles to which they will be subjected. So there should be compensation, wherever the line eventually ends up.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested various routes for the tunnel lines. I do not want to suggest any, except to say that they should not go through Bexley. That is the only answer one can give British Rail when it seeks one's opinions on the matter. We should remember, however, that these are nationwide problems.
The Conservative party and the Government are committed to protecting the environment, and rightly so. It has become a major issue. We should not tell a publicly owned body to cover the costs of protecting the environment. British Rail may say that it can run the railway straight through Bexley and London at a certain cost but that, if it is instructed to protect the environment by tunnelling for the last 20 miles or cutting deep ravines, the project will be much more expensive, rendering it impossible to make a profit. This is a national responsibility; the Government must be prepared to contribute, in the national interest, to safeguarding the environment. They already do that in other ways; the same should be done for the channel tunnel railway.
It is argued that the Act which established the channel tunnel does not allow Government subsidy. I do not believe that, and nor do the lawyers whom I have consulted. The Act concerns the railway in the tunnel and the stations outside it. It does not cover the area from the tunnel up to the north of Scotland, and when the legislation was before the House, no one believed it did it cannot be interpreted in that way. So the Government have a free hand. They can agree that protection of the environment is at stake, as we demand they do, and they should be prepared to contribute to the costs so that the line can be run as a commercial concern once the channel tunnel is established.
This is a vital new clause—vital in the interests of fairness and of the individual, to which our party is committed. I do not accept the argument that, because this will cost more money, we should reject the idea. The money will go to people deliberately and directly affected by the line, and I urge the House to support the new clause. I also urge the Minister to accept it, and if he cannot do so tonight, at least to announce that he will at a later stage. All I ask the Minister for is a straightforward, "Yes, I accept the new clause."

Mr. Soley: It is one of the curiosities of this debate that we are discussing a Bill which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, yet this new clause is being dealt with by a Minister from the Department of Transport. I welcome the improved compensation under the Bill, but we in this country have still not grasped the principle of a proper compensation scheme devised for a number of projects which affect people's lives in the way in which the people of Kent and south London will be affected by the channel tunnel. In comparable countries in Europe, compensation would be much better—there would be more of it and the rationale behind its apportionment would be more clearly thought out. It would be handled largely through the planning process.
The new clause implies that the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to administer the scheme, but the presence of the Minister for Public Transport makes me suspect, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) hinted, that British Rail may be asked—wrongly—to pay for the scheme.

Sir John Stanley: The new clause is drafted in the usual way. It refers to "the Secretary of State" without specifying which, but the intention is that the discretionary power would lie with the Secretary of State for Transport to administer.

Mr. Soley: That is rather unusual, and it would not necessarily be done in that way in other countries. It is one option, however.
I want to put an important point to the Minister—it has already been put by a number of his Back Benchers— about the principle of better compensation. As I said, we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but we have not got it right. The Europeans have managed to devise a system for the railways. It is sad that France—a classic example—has obtained planning permission for the high-speed rail link more rapidly than we have, with very generous compensation. As I have said on other occasions although transport is not my brief—until we obtain planning permission, we will whistle across Europe in a 180 mph train, travel under the channel at 120 mph and then transfer in Dover to the equivalent of Thomas the Tank Engine and finish the journey at about 60 mph. The reason that it is proving so difficult to obtain planning permission is partly that we do not have the planning powers in place, and partly that our compensation schemes are less generous. To put it bluntly, the French often buy out opposition.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that the time had passed when we could accept that a proposal could be pushed through regardless of the consequences for people living in the area. One way is to ensure that people receive full and fair compensation.

Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Gentleman is right on that point. Does he also recognise that in Europe, apart from the physical compensation of money, sound barriers and other noise remedial measures have been provided for existing as well as new lines, whereas we are still in the kindergarten stage?

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had not planned to raise it, but I believe that he is correct.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made a powerful and persuasive speech. However, I still have some reservations. I am not convinced that this is the best way to proceed. He made great play of the fact that the comparison should be with airports and aircraft noise. I understand that. He also made great play of the fact that the high-speed rail link would mean a massive increase in use. Residents will hear a sudden, high-pitched sound that will then disappear, and it will be quiet for 10 minutes, an hour or however long it is before the next one. I would not like to live in that situation.
It is perhaps a mistake to dismiss too lightly the comparison with road noise. People living on the edge of the A4 before it becomes the elevated section of the M4 in west London have to put up with a continuous thundering


noise for the best part of 20 hours a day, seven days a week. They also have to put up with their houses cracking and their windows shattering. The impact in that area is very dramatic.
I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I am sure that he will not be slow to point out that, if compensation is provided on this link, it will not be hard to think of other examples that might need similar compensation in the near future. Compensation may be required not only for the extension of the high-speed line throughout the United Kingdom in the next century, but for the proposed dedicated rail link from Paddington to Heathrow. That link is an eminently good idea. Such works and such intensification of use would lead to the real possibility of such a scheme being introduced. There are many other examples.
I am not convinced that the way to deal with this matter is to give this power to the Secretary of State—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing implied. Perhaps the right way would be to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether a scheme should be introduced and what its parameters should be. There is a big difference between living 20 yd from the high-speed line and living 200 or 400 yd away. Where to draw the boundary for the type and extent of compensation is critical.
I make the point in passing—but it has some depth—that, under the present alternative to the poll tax, the rating system could not be used to give people a sliding scale of values. One of the advantages of a fair rates system is to be able to give assistance without going all the way to full possession, which is what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing understandably and rightly wants for people living right next to the line—and, I would argue, for people living next to major roads or airports.
We need to consider the principle. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I am not entirely persuaded that the new clause is the right way in which to proceed, but, if the Minister does not consider the principle and find a way of compensating people, it will be hard to resist the temptation to vote for the new clause as the best available way that we have of putting pressure on the Government to reconsider the matter. We want genuine assurances about the alternatives, and we want to know the Government's thinking. It is on that basis that I shall advise my hon. Friends.
It is important that the burden is not put only on British Rail. If it were, British Rail could rightly point out that the intensification of use as a result of the channel tunnel link or the Paddington-Heathrow dedicated service would have serious consequences. It would have to consider the implications for its future programmes if it had to take into account the additional compensation that would be required. It might also argue with some force that the consequences of the intensification of road use do not fall directly on road users. A bypass may be expanded or developed, and the number of trucks and vehicles using it may increase rapidly, but the burden does not fall on the road users. Why should British Rail alone carry the burden?

Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The clause deals with a narrow point—allowing the

same ability, on a discretionary basis, to compensate people who are affected by intensification of use. In some of the examples to which he referred, compensation would be available anyway, because it would be a new line.

Mr. Soley: I am not sure that that is right. I do not speak as a shadow Transport Minister, but I understand that some of the existing line would be used for the dedicated Heathrow-Paddington link. If I am wrong, I withdraw that example, but there are others. I am not thinking of a new line or a new road, where, I agree, that would not apply. My understanding is that the existing line would be used, and the scheme would be triggered.
Although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a powerful and persuasive case—I would not want to rule out the new clause altogether—it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. We want the Minister to clarify his proposals and to give us a time scale. It is no good saying to people, either in the channel tunnel area or anywhere else, that resources will be put into rail that will result in an intensification of use on a number of lines, but we may wait for ever for a compensation scheme that is at least comparable to the equivalent European scheme.
We should copy the European model. I am not universally in favour of following what other countries do, but in Britain we lack a good regional government structure and a compensation scheme that—despite the improvements provided in the Bill, which I welcome—is still rather haphazard and contradictory. We should accept that, for major new developments, especially those related to transport, we need a more coherent scheme. The measure proposed by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing recognises the impact of the channel tunnel on Kent—no one should under-estimate that. I am not convinced that we need a nationwide scheme, which he and some of his hon. Friends want. I await with interest what the Government have to say. We want a significant commitment from them. We are travelling hopefully—although we may not do so in very fast trains. If the Minister gives such a commitment, my advice to my hon. Friends will reflect that.

7 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The debate has been serious and well argued. I cannot help feeling that it may be a precursor of inevitable debates on a new high-speed rail-link line, as many of the issues that have been raised are germane to the planning problems that consideration of the case for such a link, and its route, is bound to involve.
Powerful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) —who spoke in his normal firm but courteous fashion—and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Another powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I note that it is 21 years to the day since my right hon. Friend was appointed Prime Minister; and, as he has said, this is the first time that his name has appeared on an amendment paper for nearly 16 years. We must therefore take his remarks seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised the question of the Ove Arup route. That is one of the options


being considered by the Government and British Rail for the high-speed rail link. However the BBC may have reported my remarks this morning, once the Government have reached a conclusion on the preferred route—which I hope they will do as quickly as possible—and once that conclusion is published with the supporting papers, the environmental impact of the route on Kent and London will have to he considered for perhaps a year. That will happen regardless of whether a prima facie case has been made out. Both Houses may then need as long as two years to consider the resulting Bill. Who knows? I have not as much experience of parliamentary procedures as some hon. Members. It will take a long time—too long, some may argue—for all the issues to be considered.
It is true that the procedures are speedier in France; that is because the French have a different approach to planning. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling will know, once the conseil d'état has decided that a scheme is in the national interest, the normal planning procedures usually follow. I note, however, that it has taken the Germans 10 years to plan, and then construct, what they describe as a high-speed link between Hanover and Würzburg.
I am well aware that my arguments may not convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, and some of my other hon. Friends. I shall advise the House to resist the new clause, although I hope that I shall do so in a reasoned fashion. I have some positive and constructive things to say, but I realise that the arguments will not go away. My right hon. Friend and others will present them again when we debate the British Railways (No 3) Bill—a private Bill that seeks permission for certain channel tunnel works—and in our debates on any high-speed rail link proposal and on a Bill to enshrine planning powers for such a line. I know that, if I do not convince my right hon. Friend tonight, he will continue to present the concerns of his constituents and his own strong feelings—as, indeed, he is right to do.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not make a debating speech, but instead read my prepared notes. We have given considerable thought to what has been said, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would be listening carefully.
As a society, we are rightly becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of life; noise, from whatever source, tends to depress that quality, and noise from railway trains is no exception. It was 12 months ago that the issue was raised during a statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), about the channel tunnel rail link.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and to other colleagues for the time that it has taken for me to make a substantive response to the issues that were raised then. The delay does not point to inactivity or to a lack of interest on the part of the Department. Far from it: I have taken a close interest in the subject. On no fewer than six occasions in the past year, I have travelled along the routes that the channel tunnel trains will take through Kent and south London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a fair point. We tend to be preoccupied with Kentish issues, but we must not forget that many London boroughs will

be equally affected by the channel tunnel. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling accepts that.
I have also visited the homes of people living close to the railway lines. On those visits, I have been accompanied not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling but by other colleagues, and I have now been to nine of the 14 constituencies that will be most directly affected. Earlier this year, I went with the chairman of British Rail to BR's research establishment at Derby to hear and to see at first hand what BR is doing about developing a quieter railway. In the Easter recess, I went to France and Germany to see how their Governments and railway administrations deal with noise. No one can accuse the Department, or me, of a lack of interest in the matter.
Before I deal with the new clause, let me make a number of brief but general points about railway noise. In connection with channel tunnel services, we are concerned with two entirely separate matters: noise from any new rail link that is built—which cannot occur for several years yet —and the increase in noise resulting from the running of more trains on existing lines.
To deal with the problem of the new railway lines, we plan to make regulations that will make mandatory the insulation of houses along the line where the noise is at more than a specified level. Compensation provisions for injurious affection will also apply. Such regulations have existed since 1973 in respect of new roads. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that our new provisions will apply to the relevant portion of the Heathrow-Paddington express railway.
Hitherto, there has been no real need for any railway equivalent to the 1973 regulations, as very few new lines of any length have been built since the war. Now, however, we may be entering a new era, and the proposed channel tunnel rail link will certainly be a major new line by any standards. We intend that British Rail, in designing and building a new line, will have to comply with the regulations that we plan to make.
The measurement of noise is a very technical and difficult matter. Last year, to help us to frame the regulations, we appointed a group of experts to recommend to us a noise standard, or standards, for new railways, equivalent to that which exists for new roads. We published the report of the group—commonly known as the Mitchell committee—in February. Subject to the views that we received on the committee's regulations, we shall proceed with the regulations and present them to Parliament for scrutiny in due course, in the usual way.
My next point concerns the intensified use of the lines that will take channel tunnel traffic initially. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich that any decision on a new rail link might or might not have consequences for the use of existing lines. That important point has not escaped the Government's attention, nor will it escape that of the House.
There is no doubt that there will be a sharp and significant increase in traffic, although the extent of that increase will vary from stretch to stretch along the existing routes. I well understand the special concern about the increase in freight traffic, much of which—although not all—will run at night, for operational reasons.

Mr. Speed: From day one, in June 1993, every British Rail train going through the channel tunnel will travel


from Ashford to Folkestone on tracks in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). When the high-speed rail link is built, two new lines will be placed alongside the existing Network SouthEast lines. At that stage—but, under the present law, at that stage only—my constituents, and those of my right hon. and learned Friend will be entitled to compensation and amelioration.
Will not that part of the line have a special problem? Wherever the other trains may go, it will carry all the existing traffic as well as that of the high-speed link.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling would be the first to point out that, in terms of intensification of use, there is no difference in principle between the section of the existing railway line that runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and that which runs through his own constituency. There may be a different degree, but the principal point would apply to all stretches. However, I understand the specific problems of the stretch mentioned by my hon. Friend.
On the section between Cheriton and Ashford on which the trains will run, BR expects the number of freight trains, international and domestic together, to build up to about 66 a day—24 hours—in 1995. That compares with 48 freight trains on an average day in 1990. Many of those were carrying materials for the construction of the channel tunnel, and that traffic has now largely disappeared. The 48 trains in 1990 were all relatively noisy diesel, hauled over jointed track, many of them with heavy axle load wagons. Elsewhere, the increases vary greatly, but the Government understand the intensification of the use and the problems that that brings, especially at night and with freight.
Although the extra traffic will not begin to run for another two years, it is important that we address the problem of mitigation of noise carefully and correctly now. I appreciate the point, expressed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on a number of occasions, that some of his constituents are having difficulty in selling their homes now, especially in the current housing market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the same point, although in a wider context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who have been affected in this way and with my right hon. Friend's intentions. However, I have to say, although with some regret, that the Government are unable to accept his new clause. Before I take a more positive note at the end of my speech, I shall explain, in a reasoned fashion, why we cannot commend the new clause to the House.
The new clause would introduce an important new principle into the law. It would extend financial compensation for depreciation in the value of a property to situations involving the greater use of railways and, as the House must admit, in all frankness, other public works including roads. It is not possible to draw a hard and fast line between intensification on railways and that on roads. As I said, the new clause would extend the financial compensation provided under statutory powers without any works necessarily having taken place. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 97,

situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.
As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification under existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling went on to say that, irrespective of the legal advice, we should address the principal issue, and I shall now do that.

Sir John Stanley: It has nothing to do with legal advice. There is no question of anybody claiming that there is an entitlement to compensation under the law as it stands, so legal advice is a red herring. We have to address the issue of classification of the new works that should properly trigger entitlement to compensation. This is not intensification of existing use; it is a multi-billion pound project, constructing the channel tunnel on one end, and linking the continental rail system with the British rail system. The parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend tells us that £700 million worth of new works have been entered into to enable the channel tunnel rail passenger and freight trains to exit the tunnel.

Mr. Freeman: If my right hon. Friend is not making that point, perhaps he will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is, on behalf of Bromley. It is a serious point that requires an answer. I have given the answer that, as legislation stands, the intensification of use —no one denies that—would fall outwith the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
7.15 pm
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, there is no major international precedent for extending compensation to intensification of use in that way. Both the policy and the cost implications of any such change are considerable. They would need to be thought through fully and carefully before any provision of that kind could be considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has argued that this is a permissive, not a mandatory, clause, but he will no doubt accept that there is no point in legislating unless Parliament wishes the powers to be used.
My right hon. Friend argued that the sudden and significant increase in traffic that will run on the lines in Kent between the channel tunnel and London creates a new and unforeseen situation, that it will be tantamount to the construction of a new line. But we must continue to draw a clear distinction between injurious affection or loss of enjoyment resulting from the carrying out of works, and loss of enjoyment resulting from a change in the use of a railway, a road, or some other public works. There are and will continue to be many other instances—even if less dramatic perhaps—where the use of existing public works changes and people claim that they are adversely affected.
The new clause would also make the Secretary of State responsible for paying any compensation, rather than the owner or manager of the public works in question. That would breach the important principle embodied in the Land Compensation Act and in this Bill, that if compensation is to be paid for depreciation, it should be paid by the responsible authority. It should be paid, in the case of a highway, by the highway authority, and in the case of a railway, by the owner and operator of the railway. There is in my view no justification for putting the burden of the net additional cost directly upon the taxpayer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about aircraft noise. He will recall that I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he served with distinction as Minister of State for the Armed Services. He is right about the provisions to mitigate noise at airfields. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are being followed by the Ministry of Defence and my right hon. Friend was responsible for initiating that policy. I am advised that injurious compensation is triggered by major new works. He will recall that at Leeming new runways had to be laid and major new installations had to be built, and that that was the trigger for the payment. I can confirm that British Rail has the power to make ex gratia purchases of houses. Some of my hon. Friends will recall substantial purchases in Kent and in London connected with earlier plans for the channel tunnel link.
My right hon. Friend made an interesting point on insulation. He asked the Government to compare the consequences of rail noise and aircraft noise. The Government will study carefully the argument that he has deployed at greater length tonight than on any other occasion. It is an interesting and relevant argument, but not one that I will accept tonight.

Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I have to correct him on this essential point. I referred to the fact that, where civil aviation works are concerned, no new runway or extension of an existing runway is necessary to trigger injurious compensation. As he appeared to differ with what I said about RAF Leeming, I will read the answer that I received to my recent parliamentary question. I asked:
what were the main works undertaken at RAF Leeming to enable the deployment of Tornado aircraft to take place there; and whether they included any extension to the main runway.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Armed Forces replied:
The main works undertaken at RAF Leeming were associated with the upgrading of the Station's utilities, the enhancement of technical accommodation, married quarter developments and the construction of airfield survival measures, which included hardened aircraft shelters and command and control centres. The runway was resurfaced and re-profiled, but no extension work was undertaken."— [Official Report, 15 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 218.]
In other words, there was no new runway. There was no extension of a runway. That is our central point. New works do not have to include a new runway to trigger injurious compensation in relation to aircraft noise.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful contribution, which refreshed my memory and will help in our consideration of the comparison between aircraft and railway noise.
I will conclude on a more positive note, by describing the eight steps that British Rail and the Government are taking and will take. They are not all of gigantic significance, but I hope that they will be taken in the constructive spirit in which I offer them. In drawing up this list, I tried to accommodate in particular the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, who came to see me on a number of occasions.
First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help, in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected.
As British Rail has no statutory obligation—and I stress that, because it is in exactly the same position as a highway authority in respect of a road that is used by more traffic and thus creates more noise—there is no statutory basis on which any such measures would be carried out. It will be up to British Rail and the local authority to agree on the most sensitive areas, type of measure to be taken, and financial arrangements. I hope that those discussions will begin soon, and I look forward to hearing how they progress. I am sure that, with good will and ingenuity, it should be possible to achieve some worthwhile alleviation for those most affected. I shall continue to take the closest personal interest in that aspect.
Secondly, at the end of next year British Rail hopes to demonstrate its new freight rolling stock, to show how quiet it will be in -comparison with today's equipment. That may not persuade my right hon. Friend, but I intend to be present at that demonstration, and I hope that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me. There will be new electric locomotives, the railway lines will be continuously welded, and there will be new electrified lines running through my right hon. Friend's constituency. They will be considerably quieter than at present.
Thirdly, later this year the Government will announce their views on the recommendations of the Mitchell committee on specific noise insulation standards for new railway lines, and will then prepare regulations to put those standards into effect. Fourthly, the Government are not ready to make a response to the various recommendations of the noise review working party, the Batho committee, on railway noise or on other types of transport noise, but we will respond in due course. We intend to commission research within our own departmental vote to assess whether the existing noise standards for new roads are still appropriate. If we decide as a result of that work that those standards ought to be changed, we will at the same time make a corresponding change in the standards applying to new railways.
Fifthly, I mentioned by implication the research that British Rail is undertaking at Derby into damping the noise arising from wheel on rail. If British Rail can usefully undertake any further research in that connection, the Department is prepared to consider whether it might qualify for some financial support under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.
Sixthly, in some places, the throb of idling diesel locomotives can cause vibration and nuisance to householders. That was pointed out by three of my hon. Friends, who have witnessed the consequences of the noise emitted from a standing locomotive at night. I confirm that British Rail has a standing rule that diesel engine


drivers should switch off their engines if they are brought to a halt and expect to be held up for more than 10 minutes. The House will have noted that British Rail has already ordered new, quieter electric locomotives.
As to fears of damage to houses by vibration, Kent county council agreed with British Rail that it is not practicable to deal with that aspect in advance of any development in the use made of a railway line. Each case must be considered on its merits. If someone complains to British Rail about vibration, BR will undertake a specific test at the location in question, and it has agreed with Kent county council to monitor the situation when the traffic on the lines increases. It is rare for vibration damage to occur, but the party causing the damage would be liable.
Finally, to counteract the fears that have been expressed—understandably, though not always rationally —about the impact of channel tunnel trains on local housing markets, I plan to take steps to ensure that professional people, such as those working in estate agents and building societies, engaged in the selling and buying of properties near the railway lines are fully and accurately informed as to what is proposed, as opposed to what is rumoured. I do not belittle householders' fears and anxieties, but the facts should be as fully and widely known as possible, so that legitimate concern is not fed by exaggeration.

Mr. Soley: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about research and back-up facilities, which are wholly desirable. However, from the list that the Minister read out, it seems that British Rail will consider paying compensation only in respect of some householders. That does not sound very convincing in terms of moving on the principle to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred.

Mr. Freeman: I understand the concern that has been expressed. I hope that I have made a reasoned argument as to why we cannot accept that principle in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address that important point. He cannot separate the problem of intensification of the use of railways and roads—which I am sure is one with which he would want to deal—from that of the significant financial consequences for public expenditure that would flow from accepting the new clause as drafted.

Mr. Soley: That is precisely the point that I am making. I am unhappy about the new clause because I do not think that its consequences have been thought through. It does not seem that the Minister or his Department, along with the Department of the Environment, have come up with anything remotely resembling a transport scheme compensation policy that gives hope for the future. Although I would not give the clause as drafted carte blanche support, unless the Government give a stronger indication of their willingness to move on the principle, I have to acknowledge that the new clause is necessary, if only to put pressure on the Government to think again.

Mr. Freeman: We will debate compensation later tonight—and as to compulsory purchase, the Bill makes significant strides in the direction of a fairer scheme. I hope that my remarks will be taken in the constructive and positive spirit in which I make them, and that my right

hon. Friend accepts at least that the Government acknowledge the problem of intensification of use and will continue to address it.

Sir John Stanley: With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to our useful and important debate on the significant question of compensation policy. Whatever may be the result of any subsequent Division, it is worth recording that every right hon. and hon. Member who spoke from the Back Benches was in favour of new clause 16.
I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Minister because, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, he was responsible, with me, for implementing in the Ministry of Defence the very policy that he has resisted as a transport Minister this evening. I appreciate his quandary.
No Minister could have been more conscientious and concerned to understand the problems faced in Kent and in London, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal attention to them. Having said that, his reply was very disappointing. The Government have missed a major opportunity. The issue will not go away—the injustice to individuals is too glaring, too patent to be simply dismissed. It will have to be the subject of general legislation, and the Bill is the perfect medium for dealing with the problem. The Government have been on notice for nearly two years, and I much regret that they have not taken the opportunity that presented itself. It is certainly my wish and, I believe, that of many right hon. and hon. Members who support new clause 16 to press the question to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 255.

Division No. 181]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Couchman, James


Alton, David
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Battle, John
Dunn, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bellotti, David
Eadie, Alexander


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fearn, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buckley, George J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Carr, Michael
Fraser, John


Cartwright, John
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Galloway, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gardiner, Sir George


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)






Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Graham, Thomas
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Nellist, Dave


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Patchett, Terry


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Salmond, Alex


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles
Sims, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Stanbrook, Ivor


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McMaster, Gordon
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martlew, Eric
Wolfson, Mark


Maxton, John
Wray, Jimmy


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sir John Stanley and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Mr. Roger Moate


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Allason, Rupert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amess, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Sir Antony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burns, Simon


Benyon, W.
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Chris


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Butterfill, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carrington, Matthew


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carttiss, Michael





Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chope, Christopher
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kilfedder, James


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Conway, Derek
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Curry, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dicks, Terry
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Evennett, David
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Madel, David


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moss, Malcolm


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Ground, Patrick
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Holt, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irving, Sir Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion






Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr lan


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, Sir William
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Schedule

REGISTRATION OF OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

Application for registration

1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the mineral planning authority must—

(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and
(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application, and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.

(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but
(b) the mineral planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.

Determination of conditions

2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—


(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,
(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above, and
(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and
(b) except where section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the mineral planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and
(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—

(a) the mineral planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and
(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 72(1)(b) of the principal Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.

Registration

3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 69 of the principal Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.

General provisions about applications

4.—(1) An application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and
(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.
(4) Where the mineral planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) or, as the case may be, (7) below to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or, as the case may be, involving the depositing of mineral waste, but
(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph 1 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 66 to 68 of the principal Act (notification of owners and agricultural tenants) and any provisions of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or
(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, any provision, corresponding to the provisions referred to in paragraph (a) above, of section 65 of that Act (notice etc. of applications) and of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 65 to 68 of the principal Act (publicity for applications) and any provision of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or
(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, section 65 of that Act and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(8) Section 68(1) or, as the case may be, 65(5) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.

Right of appeal

5.—(1) Where the mineral planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or
(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the mineral planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5)(b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.

(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and
(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) to (8) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.

Determination of appeal

6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or
(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the mineral planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and
(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.

Reference of applications to Secretary of State

7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—

(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

(i) paragraph 1 (1) to (4),
(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6)(a), (7) and (8),
(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and
(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the mineral planning authority,
(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.

(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".

Two or more applicants

8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and


(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and
(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.

Application of provisions of principal Act

9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 69 of the principal Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the mineral planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the mineral planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 284 and 288 of the principal Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.

Interpretation

10.—(1) In this Schedule—
official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or
(b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired.


(2) For the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the principal Act, have been determined, and
(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.'—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment made: No. 104—

SCHEDULE

REGISTRATION OF OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

The following Schedule shall be inserted as Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act—

REGISTRATION OF OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

Application for registration

1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the planning authority must—

(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section 49H(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and
(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application; and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.

(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but
(b) the planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.

Determination of conditions

2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,
(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above, and
(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and
(b) except where section 49H(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and
(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—



(a) the planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and
(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 27(1)(b) of this Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph I above was granted.

Registration

3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 31 of this Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.

General provisions about applications

4.—(1) An application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and
(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.
(4) Where the planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under sections 23 or 24 of this Act to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; but
(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) Sections 23(3) and 24(6) of this Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.

Right of appeal

5.—(1) Where the planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or
(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.

(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5)(b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.
(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and
(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) and (6) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.

Determination of appeal

6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or
(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and
(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.

Reference of applications to Secretary of State

7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—

(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

(i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),
(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6)(a), (7) and (8),
(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and
(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the planning authority,

(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity o


appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.
(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".

Two or more applicants

8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and
(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and
(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.

Application of provisions relating to planning permission

9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 31 of this Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of regulations under this Act or a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 231 and 233 of this Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.

Interpretation

10.—(1) In this Schedule—
official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
owner" in relation to any land means any person who under the Lands Clauses Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired portion of which is not less than seven years.

(2) For the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—


(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 233 of this Act, have been determined, and
(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.".'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 5

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
No. 43, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B), is as similar as possible to the demolished building.

(5B) A replacement building—

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;
(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;
(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b)).'.

No. 44, in page 8, line 34, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
No. 45, in page 8, line 39, leave out from `granted'to end of line 42 and insert 'by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.

(10) Where—

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and
(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.'—[Sir G. Young.]

Clause 34

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 41, line 3, leave out `demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
No. 65, in page 41, line 11, at end insert—


'(5A) An enforcement notice issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building" which, subject to subsection (5B) of this section, is as similar as possible to the demolished building.
(5B) A replacement building—

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;
(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;
(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection).'.



No. 66, in page 41, line 34, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
No. 67, in page 41, line 39, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 42 and insert—
`under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.

(10) Where—

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and
(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of that construction.'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 6

APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 10, line 37, at end insert—
`(6) In section 303(3) of that Act (fees payable to Secretary of State in respect of deemed applications for planning permission) for "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the local planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under section 177(5); and
(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".'— [Sir G. Young.]

Clause 35

APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 42, line 22, leave out from 'specified' to 'as' in line 24 and insert
`in the notice'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 38

STOP NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 44, line 42, leave out 'subsection (1) of.' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 10

CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT.

Amenthrfents made: No. 142, in page 13, line 35, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'
No. 143, in page 14, line 10 leave out from 'force' to end of line 11.
No. 144, in page 14, line 20, leave out from 'force' to end of line 21.
No. 145, in page 15, line 7 leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
No. 146, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'were'.
No. 147, in page 15, line 16, leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 17 and insert
'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
No. 148, in page 15, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert—
'(4) The lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
No. 149, in page 16, line 16, at end insert—

`(4A) A certificate under section 191 or 192 shall not affect any muter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'. —[Sir G. Young.]

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 16, line 28, at end insert—
'(8) There shall be no fee for submitting applications under section 192.'.
The amendment seeks to ensure that no fee is charged for submitting an application under section 192 of the parent Act, which refers to applications for planning permission under section 69 of that Act and to certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development.
As we are talking about circumstances in which a person wishes to find out whether he already has permission, the provision involves the right to know—the right to information—and it seems wrong that a fee should be charged. I should like to hear the Minister's response to our view that it is wrong to charge someone a fee for providing him with information affecting his current position and that that information ought to be available free of charge.

Mr. Yeo: I shall try to be equally brief. I appreciate the reason behind the amendment, but I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to resist it.
We consulted widely about the implementation of the provisions of clause 10, including the possibility of a fee for new section 192 applications. Our view is that, because a "lawful development certificate" granted under the new provisions would be a more valuable and significant document to the applicant than a favourable determination under the present section 64, a fee for the service is justified. More work will be involved for the local authorities in operating the new procedure. For instance, they will have to investigate the lawfulness of existing uses or works on the land and the terms of any planning permission that may exist.
We therefore think it reasonable for planning authorities to be able to charge a fee for that administrative work. We also believe that most developers will accept that it is reasonable to pay a fee as the price for obtaining an authority's considered opinion as to whether their proposal needs planning permission. If a certificate is granted, they will be able to rely on it as an assurance that planning permission is not required. In some cases, that will save them from having to submit a planning application to the local authority.
We are considering the responses to the consultation paper that we issued in January. No final decision has been taken on the proposal to charge a fee. We recognise the need to announce our intentions for implementing the provisions of clause 10, including our intention as regards enabling planning authorities to charge a fee for certificate applications. We hope to make an announcement about that before the summer recess, which would also state when the provisions could be brought into force. Charging a fee for the new section 192 applications would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to lay fees regulations before Parliament and those who oppose the idea would have an opportunity to object.
I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is not unreasonble to enable planning authorities to charge a fee to help cover the costs of the new service, which will be of


considerable benefit to the people who use it. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 39

CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 46, line 17 leave out
'building, engineering, mining or other'.
No. 152, in page 47, line 35 leave out
'building, engineering, mining or other'.
No. 153, in page 47, line 43 leave out 'were'.
No. 154, in page 47, line 44 leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 45 and insert
'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
No. 155, in page 48, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—
'(4) There shall be an irrefutable presumption as to the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
No. 156, in page 48, line 15, after 'regulations', insert `under this Act'.
No. 157, in page 48, line 17, after 'by', insert 'such'.
No. 158, in page 48, line 18, after 'under', insert 'such'.
No. 159, in page 48, line 20, after 'by', insert 'such'.
No. 160, in page 48, line 24, after 'particular', insert 'such'.
No. 161, in page 48, line 27, after 'by', insert 'the'.
No. 162, in page 48, line 31, after 'under', insert 'the'.
No. 163, in page 48, line 44, after 'by', insert 'such'.
No. 164, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
'(4A) A certificate under section 90 or 90A shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
No. 165, in page 49, line 7, after 'by', insert `such'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 40

RIGHTS OF ENTRY

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
'(3A) The provisions of section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under subsection (3) of this section as they apply in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 12

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'or otherwise' and insert 'with the authority or as specified in subsection (1B)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 36, at end insert—
'(1B) Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may unilaterally enter into an obligation (referred to in this section as a "unilateral undertaking")

where a local planning authority has been unwilling to enter into an obligation by agreement and an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State under section 78.'.

Mr. Griffiths: This amendment has the support of many organisations which are deeply disturbed by the growing influence of planning gain on decisions made by local planning authorities. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has been in the vanguard of this campaign, but other organisations and individuals have also expressed that concern.
Agreements drawn up by local authorities and developers—renamed "planning obligations" in the Bill—have a role in the planning system, but not as a means of assisting the granting of planning permissions which would not otherwise have been granted.
In Committee we opposed the principle contained in clause 12 to allow developers to enter into "unilateral undertakings". The priority should be opening up the processes of planning gain to public debate, rather than encouraging even more agreements to be drawn up behind closed doors without even local authority involvement.
Earlier amendments to delete this aspect from the Bill were unsuccessful. In view of the Government's commitment to the process, we have sought an amendment which would achieve the Government's aims but would reduce some of the problems that have been widely feared.
Both the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Law Society believe that a greater distinction between planning obligations by agreement and unilateral undertakings should be made in the Bill and that unilateral undertakings should be used only when negotiations with the local authority have broken down.
The Government have said at all stages of the Bill in both Houses that they view unilateral undertakings as a specific mechanism for enabling a log jam to be broken. I believe that those were the words used in Committee, where the Minister said:
We see the provision in clause 12 very much as the exception and are in favour of agreements being negotiated with the local authority … The provision is a safety valve that can be used when recalcitrant local authorities obstruct otherwise sensible developments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 April 1991; c. 114.]
However, the Government have done nothing to reflect that on the face of the Bill, nor have they promised to clarify planning policy guidance.
If unilateral undertakings are only appropriate when the mechanism for achieving planning obligations by agreement has broken down, that should be clearly shown in the Bill. Our amendment would achieve that by ensuring that all obligations were entered into by agreement, unless a local authority refused to negotiate and an appeal was lodged. Unilateral undertakings would be allowed only in respect of a planning appeal, which is exactly what the Government have argued. I therefore ask the Government for a clear commitment that new planning guidance will be issued which will carefully define the circumstances within which unilateral undertakings would be appropriate and the basis on which they would be considered by the Secretary of State and his inspectors. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude towards these amendments.

Sir George Young: I do not think that there is a wide gulf between the two sides on this subject. I can confirm that I do not foresee that these facilities will be used other than on appeal, and I hope to explain why the amendments, especially No. 111 might be unhelpful.
In Committee and in another place, there were extensive debates about provisions in clause 12 for entering into a planning obligation by means of a unilateral undertaking—there have been four debates on unilateral undertakings here and in another place.
I confirm that we expect such undertakings to be used mainly at appeal, in situations where there is a planning objection to the development proposal, which can only be resolved by a planning obligation under section 106, and where the parties are not able to reach agreement about how to resolve the objection. Clearly, when they could reach agreement before going to appeal, unilateral undertakings would not be needed.
In Committee, I gave some examples of where the provisions might be helpful, and I do not propose to repeat them. However, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer pressing his objection, in principle, to unilateral undertakings. The principle is conceded in the amendments, but he seeks to ring-fence them by allowing them only on an appeal.

Mr. Win Griffiths: If I may clarify that matter, we have accepted that the Government are not going to move from unilateral undertakings, so we have sought to deal with it in that way.

Sir George Young: I recognise that realism has broken out.
The amendments would allow unilateral undertakings to be made only in the circumstances described in the last two lines of amendment 111.
The amendment is unnecessary, because the main use of the undertakings, as an alternative means of entering into a planning obligation, will be at the appeal stage anyway. We expect that recourse to undertakings will be relatively infrequent and that obligations will generally be entered into by agreement. I confirm that, in my view, that is the preferred course. We propose to reinforce that in policy guidance.
The amendment is undesirable because it would create some inflexibility. Amendment No. 111 would prevent a developer from making a unilateral undertaking until after he had lodged an appeal. As the Bill stands, a developer could make an undertaking at any stage. Such an undertaking might, by clarifying what the developer was prepared to offer, facilitate agreement between the two parties.
Alternatively, the local planning authority might be prepared to grant permission on the basis that the undertaking had removed the outstanding objections to the development proposal. The undertaking would become, in effect and possibly in fact, an agreement. There can be nothing objectionable about that process, and amendment No. 111 would preclude it. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for his response and for the way in which he seems to believe clause 12 should be interpreted.
The Minister said that he expected to issue planning guidance on this matter, although he gave no sign of how quickly it might be achieved. Before making a final response, could he give me some idea of the time scale involved?

Sir George Young: I cannot give a specific date, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is anxious that there should be guidance. Guidance on this part of the Bill will be issued as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. It would help if we

confirmed in guidance our view that unilateral undertakings should be used principally on appeal. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that he can accept that assurance.

Mr. Griffiths: I am anxious to help the Minister, but he will appreciate that our problem is that we object in principle to the use of unilateral undertakings. We had hoped that the Government would accept the amendment; then we should have been satisfied. Having accepted that the Government would not move on the principle, we hoped that the amendment would be passed without a vote. The Government, however, have said nothing about the time scale for the planning guidance, so there is an important issue of principle at stake, and we must press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 251.

Division No. 182]
[8.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
George, Bruce


Allen, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald
Gordon, Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Thomas


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Barron, Kevin
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Battle, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beckett, Margaret
Home Robertson, John


Beith, A. J.
Hood, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Bellotti, David
Hoyle, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George J.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leighton, Ron


Carr, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Cartwright, John
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McMaster, Gordon


Cousins, Jim
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cryer, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'1)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Morley, Elliot


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Primarolo, Da






Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Wallace, James


Richardson, Jo
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Ashby, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, Sir George


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hague, William


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert





Kilfedder, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Maples, John
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Mudd, David
Waller, Gary


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 1 at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'

No. 26, in page 20, line 7 leave out `to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert—
'(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.'
No. 27, in page 20, line 9 leave out from `injunction' to end of line 11

No. 28, in page 20, line 46 at end insert—



`(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—

(a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and
(b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5)(b),

and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'

No. 29, in page 23, line 8 leave out from 'into' to end of line 15 and insert
'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).

(2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—

(a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;
(b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;
(c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and
(d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.

(2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—

(a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2)(c);
(b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2)(d).

(2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'

No. 30, in page 23, line 23 leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 34 and insert `(2B))'—[Sir George Young.).

Clause 15

NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
'(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'—[Mr. Yeo.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 140, in page 24, line 39, at end insert—
'(2B) A development order shall require a local planning authority to notify a parish council of all planning applications involving their parish, and to send a parish council a fully detailed and complete set of plans and drawings relating to each planning application.'.
No. 141, in page 24, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) A development order shall require each applicant for planning permission to provide five copies of the application, including copies of all plans and drawings.'.
No. 113, in page 24, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission made in its area in a manner prescribed by the development order or otherwise as the authority thinks fit.'.
Government amendments Nos. 167 and 168.

Mr. Steen: I beg to move amendments Nos. 140 and 141.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak to the amendments, but he does not have to move them.

Mr. Steen: I am glad that you refreshed my memory, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We might have an opportunity to divide the House later but, subject to the help that I hope the Minister will be able to give us, it might not be necessary.
I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the amendment because it deals with parish councils. I do riot know whether hon. Members have a similar problem to mine. In my area, highly intelligent people are involved in parish council business. They are concerned and want to participate in the planning process. The problem is that they have absolutely no power and, although they are often somewhat reluctant to admit it, most of them believe that the planning process could be improved if they did have some power.
The amendment deals not with power, but solely with information. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact—I was not until I examined it more closely—that parish councils do not receive any details of planning applications made to the town, borough or district councils; they receive only outline information. Therefore, when a parish council is asked by the district or town council to consider a planning application, it receives only a notification of the outline of that application.
I took the liberty of inviting my town council in Salcombe in Devon to let me know what its problem was. The clerk of the council—Mrs. Woodhatch—wrote:
As you are probably aware"—
I was not, at that stage—
the Planning Act and the general development order require the planning authority as soon as possible to inform a parish council in writing of a planning application, indicating the nature of the development and identifying the land. It does not require the planning authority to send any plans of the proposals or to explain the reason for the application even if they know that themselves, which in many cases is doubtful. We are also required to advise the planning authority within 14 days of the town council's representation.
The council has no information—or very little—but is required to give its views within 14 days. Mrs. Woodhatch's letter continued:
You will see from this that the procedure is most unsatisfactory and has been so since 1974. Even if we do make recommendations they are often ignored.
The letter continues, but the point is that the council receives outline information only but no details on which to base its view. That is why so many parish councils make the most extraordinary recommendations to district and town councils.

Mr. Win Griffiths: One of the quirks of the 1974 local government reform was to describe parish councils in Wales as "community councils". We support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) because in my constituency, for example, the town council of Porthcawl, which is a substantial community, has for many years been lobbying Ogwr borough council for full planning permission. This year, for the first time, Porthcawl became a Labour-controlled authority, which is proof of the Tory's present difficulties.

Mr. Barry Porter: A Tory stronghold.

Mr. Griffiths: I could not resist that comment, especially in view of the sotto voce comment by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). However, we support the hon. Member for South Hams.

Mr. Steen: It may be reassuring for the Opposition to support me, but it makes me think that I must be on the wrong track.
I mentioned Salcombe town council, but I also wish to mention the illustrious district council of South Hams. It has a first-rate planning department and a fine planning officer. I asked him in confidence to give me an idea of some of his problems. He declined to tell me exactly what they were, but he kindly wrote to me about my proposals.
I am not asking for parish councils to be given powers to intervene in planning matters. That would be another debate, although many people believe that parish councils should be more involved. I am concerned only to ensure that they have detailed plans so that when an applicant makes an application, instead of lodging four sets of plans, he lodges five sets. It is not too outrageous to suggest that when an applicant makes an application he should bear the cost of giving exact information about what he is doing or wishes to do to the local parish council. What is the purpose of a parish council if it is not to consider detailed planning applications?
The director of planning and housing for South Hams district council, Mr. Carpenter, said:
I can confirm that I am still supplying the parish and town councils with plans where I have spare copies available. It has been council practice for many years to supply a full copy of the plan where a copy is available. However, although I ask applicants to supply six copies I am only able by statute to request four copies. Where six are received the parish and town councils receive a copy with their notification. It is not surprising by the time a copy is retained in the office for public inspection and the various statutory consultees like the water authority and the National Rivers Authority have requested copies of an application that four is an inadequate number of copies for the proper consideration of an application.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend will know of my knowledge of and love for South Hams. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that what my hon. Friend advocates as being good for South Hams is probably good for Taunton and Dean and the rest of England. The Labour party is showing interest in this matter, although many Labour Members would not know what a parish was if they saw one. However, no one from the Liberal Democrats is present and I thought that that party was a campaigner for parish councils.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has good eyesight. My attention has been drawn to the fact that no Liberal Member—if that is what they are called now—is present.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The eyesight of my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) is obviously good. However, they could not have noticed that during the Committee stage of the Bill—12 sessions—the Liberal Democrat representative attended only once. That is an appalling attendance record. He was even absent for a vital debate on coastal protection, which one would have thought would have been of interest to Eastbourne.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear something about the amendment.

Mr. Steen: It is a simple amendment and I hope that the House will support it. I am simply asking applicants to submit five copies of their application instead of four. That should be a statutory requirement.

Mr. Barry Porter: Why cannot the good Mrs. Woodhatch merely step round to the planning office and examine the plans? That is not much to ask her to do.

Mr. Steen: It is always useful to have a Merseyside intervention. The problem with Merseyside Members is that they do not understand that the constituency of South Hams is 88 miles from one end to the other. Mrs. Woodhatch would have to travel 65 miles to and from the office every week to look at the planning applications. Mrs. Woodhatch could ask the planning authority for a copy of the plans. However, I understand from the director of housing and planning that it would take his staff six to eight hours to photostat all the planning applications that arrive each week. That is why it is not a serious consideration.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I support entirely what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that there is tremendous development pressure in South Hams and Torbay? Part of the Torbay borough is in the South Hams constituency. It has the fifth highest number of planning applications in the United Kingdom. The pressure on the planning authority is enormous. The more that the plans can be circulated by statute, the better.

Mr. Steen: This is such a simple request that I cannot believe that the Government will not accept it. We all have good parish councils within our constituencies and they consist of informed, involved and concerned constituents. We may need to review the powers of parish councils in due course, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when local people with an interest in the local environment consider planning applications, they should have a copy of the plan.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We are devolving powers to schools and local hospitals. The people who sit on parish councils know the locality and are not taking decisions from a distance. They should have full information.

Mr. Steen: If we do not give parish councils the necessary information, how can they make informed judgments? Parish councils often make unusual observations and district councils therefore cannot always believe what they receive. That is not surprising. Parish councils have only an outline plan of the application to which they have to respond within 14 days. If the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were to be accepted, the good Mrs. Woodhatch and her town councillors would have to travel to the district council offices, perhaps in a charabanc, thereby causing congestion on the roads and more problems for the infrastructure. All that is required is one extra set of plans to be deposited statutorily by the applicant. Instead of putting just an outline application into the envelope, the district council could put in the detailed plan. That is not a difficult thing to do.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully and I agree with much of what he has said. Is it not the case that the authority of a parish council if often undermined because gossip and rumours spread through a village like wildfire when a development is about to take place? The parish council does not have sufficient information and is often wrong-footed and put at a great disadvantage.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has experience north of Watford and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has experienced north-west of Watford. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate's point is important. Parish councils are undermined by not being given the information. They do not have any authority or power but they have a great deal of local experience. I am simply asking the Government to ensure that an extra set of plans is made available statutorily.
I have made my point and I do not think that I need to repeat it. We should simply change the number of plans from four to five. I do not believe that there is any problem in that.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I have great sympathy for the views held by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). During my 27 years as a Member of Parliament I have spent a great deal of time pursuing the same course of action as he has sought to pursue tonight.
I hesitate to talk about private Members' Bills because, over the years, I have been a party to killing as many such Bills as anyone in the House. I remember the first time that I was lucky enough to win a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. At that time, in cahoots with the parish councils, I decided to promote a Bill to strengthen their powers. The clerk of the parish council in South Hams may recall that, as a result of my Bill, the powers of parish councils were extended.
I have always kept a careful silence about the title of my Bill. It was called the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It had a low place in the ballot and was due to come up late one Friday afternoon when nearly every Bill in sight was being killed by the Government Whip of the day. The Leader of the House at that time was an old friend of many of us, the late, much loved and lamented Lord Peart. I said to him, "I hope that you are not going to kill my Bill." He slid along to the Government Whip and then returned to me with a long face and said, "Yes, Michael, I am afraid that we are going to kill it." At that moment the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett)—we are old friends—came along and I said, "Ted, you cannot allow them to kill this Bill." The hon. Member for Wallsend told Fred Pearl that he should tell the Government Whip to let my Bill go through, and it did. That is when I learned that Whips have hearts. We extended the powers of burial authorities.
I remember also that at that time, although a parish council was allowed to put up a bus shelter, for some reason it was not allowed to put up a notice outside saying, "Bus stop". We dealt with that little problem, among many others—but I digress.
There is much merit in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. I have always felt that it is right to involve local people in planning details. The amendments do not extend the planning process. I hope

that they will not cause delay, because there is too much delay already. I would not support the amendments if I thought that they would delay the planning process. The amendments give a say to people at grass-roots level—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: An important say.

Mr. Jopling: They give an important say, as my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says, and I have always supported that.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and others who intervened in this short debate. I hope that the Government will do what they can to help, and I shall listen carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Sir Peter Emery: This is a matter of principle —either parish councils give their views on planning or they do not. If they give their views, surely they have the right to have the full plans and not just outlines. Some people say that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) are absurd, but I do not believe that they are. They make much sense. Some limitations may be needed—it may mean that not every bus shelter plan must be duplicated and sent to the parish council in full. Parish councils consider major planning decisions, and we should ensure that they have all the available plans.
Either we want parish councils to consider planning matters, and they should be fully informed, or we do not. The law is that they should consider planning applications, which is the way I should like it to stay. Unless the Government have reasons which we have not yet heard for opposing the amendments, I hope that they will take some major steps—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is a minor step.

Sir Peter Emery: I hope that the Government will take some major steps to meet the minor request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams in his sensible amendments.

Mr. Soley: It is always a pleasure to support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), not least because he frequently nailed his colours to the mast in Committee and supported us—at such great length that his Front-Bench colleagues nearly nailed him to the mast a couple of times. I see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing his colours of green and red. There has always been some uncertainty about whether he is a supporter of the Ecology party or the Labour party. We are working on him, and hope to have him on our side before long.
The hon. Gentleman is basically right. The group of amendments is about giving better information to the public. We wish to open up the planning system to more public scrutiny. That should be one of our aims. The Government took some steps towards that during the Bill's passage, which we very much welcome. Our amendment to line 42 on page 24 states:
a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission".
It is a small but important measure, and we have left open how things should be done. Members of Parliament and many more councillors know that people come along after


the event and say, "We didn't know." Often, the system for letting people know is nowhere near as good as it could or should be.
It is appropriate that we are debating the amendment today, the day on which the Community Development Foundation launched its report entitled "Action for Better Communities!" in the House of Commons with cross-party support. Present at the launch this morning were two Conservative Members, both of whom spoke in favour of the report—one chaired the group—a Member of the Liberal Democrats and two Labour Members, including me.
There is growing support for the public to be more aware of what affects the quality of their lives. Planning permission generally is one of the most important aspects. Whether we are talking about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Hams, which deal with parish councils, or about our amendment, which opens up the issue of publicity, I strongly recommend that the Government give more thought to this matter. Even if they are not prepared to act now, I hope that they will do so when the Bill is considered in the other place.

Mr. Yeo: This has been an unexpectedly productive debate, with more speeches than some of us had expected. I shall begin with amendment No. 113 before turning to amendments Nos. 140 and 141, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke. Amendment No. 113 helps me to put into context the circumstances in which parish councils will have greater access to information about planning applications, as will everyone else.
During the passage of the Bill, the Government have accepted the principle that all planning applications in England and Wales and any alterations to those applications that are accepted by a planning authority should be given publicity. That was an important change of policy and a significant change from the previous position, when we did not feel that it was necessary to require every planning application to be given publicity. We made that clear in Committee, and announced to the House on 10 May that we would give effect to that commitment by amending the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988. We will take this forward when we have considered the outcome of a public consultation exercise about how that objective can best be achieved.
As part of our consideration of the options open to us for achieving that aim, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), to invite their views on the experience that they have gained of how the public can be notified about planning applications in Scotland, where it is applicants' responsibility to publicise planning applications, and in Northern Ireland.
At this stage, before we have completed our consultations on this point, we would not wish to rule out the introduction of an arrangement in England and Wales similar to that which already exists in Scotland. When we publish the consultation paper in the next few weeks, with the aim of amending the general development order later

in the year, I envisage that the paper will invite views on a range of options, including the Scottish one. The danger of accepting amendment No. 113 is that it would limit our consideration of the issue—we would be shackled—and it would appear to rule out the possibility of making it the responsibility of the planning applicant to undertake the necessary publicity exercise.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams spoke forcefully in support of the amendments Nos. 140 and 141, citing his experience in his constituency, as he did several times during the Bill's passage. He was eloquently supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). They made a powerful case for giving parish councils, as of right, full information about the details of every planning application received by the planning authority.
I shall try briefly to explain why I do not believe that it is right to accept the amendments. I stress that I am an admirer of the work of many parish councils. In my constituency, their views on a wide range of issues are often extremely helpful.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that the observations of parish councils were helpful. Surely they would be much more helpful if parish councils were properly informed, as the amendment seeks to achieve.

Mr. Yeo: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment or two, I will try to explain why I believe that parish councils are adequately informed.
The view of the parish council can often be a barometer of local opinion, and it can help to inform the reaction of a planning authority to a particular application. It is because we recognise that that we have included in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 provisions designed to ensure that parish and community councils are better informed about development proposals in their areas. That must be seen against the background of our acceptance of the principle of some publicity for all planning applications.
The provisions in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 consolidate and extend requirements in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They include a new requirement for local planning authorities to notify parish and community councils of alterations to planning applications. That is very important. That requirement supplements the existing duty on planning authorities to notify parish councils of applications.
Those requirements are triggered by the parish council requesting the planning authority to notify it. There is a point of contact at that stage between the parish council —if it is interested—and the planning authority. That request can indicate that the parish council wishes to be informed about all planning applications in the area, or it can specify the types of planning applications about which it wishes to be informed.

Sir Peter Emery: If the parish council requests that trivia, is the planning authority obliged to supply the information within the necessary time, or can it ignore the request? That is of considerable importance.

Mr. Yeo: It is obliged to provide information about planning applications to the parish council, and we have


extended that principle not just to deal with applications but to apply if there are subsequent alterations to the application received by the planning authority.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I understand the point about schedule 6 to which the Minister drew my attention. However, the planning authority is not obliged to give the parish council the relevant information. It can simply give a formal notification. It does not have to provide the detailed information upon which the parish council can make an informed and intelligent decision.

Mr. Yeo: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will try to develop my point and explain why we believe that it would be onerous to place the requirement on planning authorities as suggested in amendments Nos. 140 arid 141.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the local planning authority making an arrangemnent with the parish council having ascertained the nature of the parish council's interest and agreeing to supply all the details as a matter of course if that appears to be the best way to deal with the matter. There is every opportunity for that to happen. There is nothing in our policy or in legislation to prevent the planning authority from dealing with parish councils in that way if it wishes.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Dacorum borough council in my constituency does exactly that, and that benefits the borough council and the parish council.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. No doubt many planning authorities adopt that policy, which works satisfactorily.

Mr. Steen: A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be a burden on the planning authority. We are not asking the planning authority to do anything extra: we are simply asking it to shove an extra set of detailed plans provided by the applicant into the envelope which it already sends to the parish council to inform the parish council that the planning application exists. There is not much extra effort.

Mr. Yeo: Although, until November last year, I did not see many planning applications and was not familiar with the bulk of the accompanying documents—as part of my daily working life now, I see planning decisions routinely several times a day—I am now aware that even what appears to be quite a simple planning application, which, I appreciate, by the time it reaches me has become a planning appeal—and I can see how it started—can comprise a significant bulk of documents. Therefore, the obligation is not quite as trivial as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams seems to imply.
Dacorum council has the great advantage of an excellent Member of Parliament and it is clearly an extremely well run authority. It has decided to make arrangements with the parish councils within the borough and those arrangements suit both sides. However, there are more than 500,000 planning applications every year. Forty per cent. of those relate to applications by householders for very simple matters.
8.45 pm
Against that background of more than 500,000 planning applications, there is merit in allowing parish councils and local planning authorities a measure of discretion about the arrangements that they make between themselves instead of imposing the blanket requirement

that with every application, whatever its nature and however trivial or important, all the details must be sent routinely to the parish council. The element of discretion that we are allowing is the best way forward and is entirely in line with our approach on a wide range of matters.
If we were to accept amendment No. 140, we would run the risk of creating planning junk mail. The clerk to the parish council would dread the arrival, almost every week, of another huge bulky envelope. He would wonder if there was any way of cutting off that supply of paper work.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is really most unfair. The Minister does not appear to have read page 133 of the Bill, which uses the words "if requested." There would not be junk mail. The parish council will have requested the details. The Minister referred to good local authorities, but there are some bad ones. The parish councils would like the right to those details.

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend's earlier interventions. I thought that she was urging on me an arrangement whereby all the details of all applications would be sent routinely to parish councils. If I misunderstood that, I apologise to my hon. Friend.
It is perfectly possible for common sense to prevail in the relationship between the planning authority and the parish council. Already, a number of authorities will arrange for the documents to be lent to the parish council at a time that coincides with its meetings.
I am concerned that amendment No. 141 would place an additional demand on applicants for planning permission. Frequently, those applicants are not organisations of great substance. They may be individuals with small household applications or they may be small businesses. The requirement in amendment No. 141 for additional copies of all the documents, including plans and drawings submitted with the planning application, to be sent as a matter of course to the planning authority would be a not insignificant burden for some applicants. If we were to follow that route, why should the line be drawn at parish councils? Many other bodies might like information about applications in which they may believe they have an interest.
I do not believe that it makes sense to impose those requirements universally.

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend the Minister has been very illuminating as he has explained the Government's view about the amendments. He has explained a number of progressions contained in the Bill that will clearly give parish councils more understanding of planning applications under the new system once the Bill becomes law. That is a move forward. My instinct is that we should see how the system works. Will my hon. Friend bear the whole issue with regard to parish councils in mind? If we find that the new arrangements are still unsatisfactory, will the Government be prepared in future to consider the possibility of dealing with the matter more in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?

Mr. Yeo: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that undertaking. As he acknowledges, we have made some significant changes to our procedures during the Bill's passage through the House. I emphasise that the principle of ensuring that in future all planning applications will


receive some publicity is an important change in our policy and goes in the direction in which he and other hon. Members would like us to move.
Despite several interventions to the contrary in this short debate, I also believe that the system under which parish councils can receive detailed information is satisfactory. To some extent, my hon. Friends will judge the level of concern about a particular issue by the volume of correspondence that they receive about it. From my experience as both a constituency Member of Parliament and a Minister with responsibility for planning matters, I have not found that the inability of parish councils to obtain sufficient information about the nature and details of planning applications that they receive has featured prominently in my postbag, either in Suffolk or in the Department. However, I gladly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that if we find that the system is not working as well as I have indicated that I believe it is, we will, of course, look at it again and make the changes that he and my other hon. Friends have requested.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for giving way and for what he has just said. However, will he undertake to consult the Association of Parish Councils and to take advice from it about whatever action he may be considering in the future?

Mr. Yeo: Yes, I will undertake to do that, but I shall also undertake to consult the Association of District Councils, which, from a different viewpoint, will have a different angle on the issue.
In those circumstances, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) not to move his amendment.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once and will need the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Mr. Steen: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his handsome undertaking, which is most gratefully received. I should like to pay tribute to all the Ministers who, throughout the Bill's passage, have been prepared to acknowledge that some good ideas emanate from the Back Benches. I pay tribute to them for their willingness to take good ideas on board and to make progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made accordingly: No. 20, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
`(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'—[Mr. Yeo.]

Mr. Soley: I beg to move, amendment No. 114, in page 24, line 51, at end insert—

'Referral of applications to the Secretary of State

`(3) After section 74(1) of the principal Act (provisions that may be made by a development order for dealing with planning applications) there is inserted—
—1"(1A) Any development order made under this section shall specify that a local planning authority shall not grant planning permission for an application which relates to development—

(a) which the local planning authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the development plan or that of an adjoining local planning authority; or
(b) which the structure plan authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the structure plan;

unless they have notified the Secretary of State of the application for planning permission, along with a statement of the issues involved, and either—

(a) a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Secretary of State having directed the reference of the application to him or given notice that he requires extra time to consider whether to require reference of the application to him; or
(b) the Secretary of State has notified the authority that he does not intend to require the reference of the application to him.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 115, in page 25, line 51 at end insert—

`DEVELOPMENT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

'(3) For section 74(1)(b) of the principal Act there is substituted—
(b) for authorising the local planning authority to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan subject to a requirement that:

(i) notice of the local planning authority's intention to grant planning permission is published in a daily newspaper circulating in the area;
(ii)) copies of the notice shall be given to the applicant and to any person who made representations to the authority; and
(iii) any representation as regards the making of a decision to grant planning permission received by the local planning authority within twenty-one days after the first publication of the notice shall be duly considered by the authority;

or otherwise as prescribed by the Order or by the Secretary of State under it.".'.

Mr. Soley: The purpose of amendment No. 114 is to require a planning application, which the local planning authority considers would materially conflict with the development plan, or which the county council considers would conflict with a structure plan, to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in.
The purpose of amendment No. 115 is to require local planning authorities intending to grant planning permission for a development which is in conflict with the structure or local plan to advertise that fact in a local newspaper, to inform those who have commented on the planning applications, and to consider any further representations within a period of 21 days.
That purpose links in with the major concession that we received from the Government at the beginning of the debate about Government new clause 20, which was tabled to replace my new clause 13. If a development is conceded which is in breach of the plan, we are arguing that the logic is that either the Secretary of State should have the power


to call it in, which is more clearly defined in amendment No. 114, or there should be a power to inform the people who have commented on the planning application. Without those provisions, we might be faced with the situation that has developed on other occasions, when someone who has objected to an application sees the new local plan, which may be publicised, and feels that the objection must be carried because it is in line with the plan. However, that person may then discover that the local authority has itself decided to breach the plan.
The amendments simply go further down the road on which the Miniser embarked in new clause 20. I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. David Bellotti: I wish to speak only to amendment No. 115. Development plans are arrived at only after considerable public consultation, advertisements and further consideration by the local authority and the Minister. The development plans from which we start are, therefore, very important. Departing from them should not be undertaken lightly in any circumstances, and certainly not without further consideration.
Amendment No. 115 provides that opportunity for further advertisement and for communication with those people who have made written representations. People often write in about departures from development plans without any further information being given to them which would enable them to comment further to the local authority. The 21-day period is sensible and is the minimum that would allow that process to be undertaken.
The amendment is worthy of support and I hope that the Minister will concede that. Although never enshrined in tablets of stone, development plans are nevertheless important and the local authority should not depart from them without a great deal of thought and further consideration.

Mr. Yeo: I recognise that amendment No. 114 does not include some of the features that I criticised when an amendment with similar objectives was tabled in Committee, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Solely) that I still do not think that the amendments are either necessary or desirable.
Two sets of circumstances are set out in which a planning application must be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in. The first of these is where the local planning authority considers there to be a material departure from the development plan, or where implementation of its proposals would be prejudiced. This simply imports material selectively from the existing 1981 departures direction. I see no real advantage in setting these matters in the concrete of primary legislation.
The second set of circumstances is where, in the view of the structure plan authority, a planning application constitutes a departure from or conflict with the structure plan. In this case, too, the local planning authority would have to report the application to my right hon. Friend.
In the departures direction, it is the local planning authority which decides whether an application should be reported to my right hon. Friend. I believe that to be more logical for, in deciding so to report, the authority is exercising a development control function, not a plan-making function. I have neither heard nor seen any

evidence that the present reporting arrangements do not work satisfactorily. In my view, the decision should continue to lie with the development control authority
Sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) of amendment No. 115 echo, although not exactly, paragraph 3 of the 1981 departures direction, but sub-paragraph (ii) is new. I believe the amendment to be inappropriate and unnecessary. It is inappropriate because the level of procedural detail given here should continue to be set out in the development plans direction, not in main legislation. It is unnecessary because the new material in subparagraph (ii) would add to bureaucracy. Subordinate legislation under section 74 of the 1990 Act already provides for applicants to be notified of how their application has been dealt with. I do not believe that applicants need copies of the departure advertisement in addition. Nor do I see the point of sending copies to those who have made representations.

Mr. Bellotti: Are there procedures for notifying those who have made representations?

Mr. Yeo: Procedures for notifying those who have made representations about what?

Mr. Bellotti: For those who have made representations as opposed to those who are applicants.

Mr. Yeo: I do not believe that there are any procedures enshrined in primary legislation. Nor do I believe that any procedures necessarily should be enshrined in primary legislation. Sending copies of departure advertisements to those who have made representations would add to local authorities' costs. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 42

NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS TO OWNERS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANTS

Amendments made: No. 167, in page 52, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to 'any' in line 9 and insert
'shall make provision—

(a) as to the notice of any application for planning permission to be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the begining of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was—

(i) the owner of, or
(ii) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

any of the land to which the application relates; and
(b) requiring'.

No. 168, in page 52, leave out lines 15 to 22.
No. 169, in page 52, line 23, after 'or' insert 'such'.
No. 170, in page 52, line 28, after 'or' insert 'such'.
No. 171, in page 53, line 30, after 'regulations' insert `under this Act'—[Mr. Yeo.]

Clause 19

LAND OF INTERESTED PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT BY THEM

9 pm

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 28, line 29, at end insert—
'(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the local planning authority shall exercise its powers in its full council in cases where the committee (or sub-committee) that would normally exercise delegated planning powers is also the committee (or sub-committee) promoting the development.'.
Again, I shall be brief. The amendment deals with cases where the local authority is promoting a development. The amendment requires that in such cases the local authority should exercise its powers in full council. The amendment would ensure closer scrutiny of proposals by local authorities to grant themselves and others planning permission on local authority land and would demonstrate that justice was done. The issue is whether a local authority can allow a development on local authority land. If it grants permission simply in a committee, it does so in a closed system. The committee is open to the public in many cases but its proceedings are not openly commented on by other councillors who are not on the committee.
This issue has exercised the Government before. On 25 July 1990 the Department of the Environment issued a press release. It said:
The Government now intends to let local authorities continue to deem themselves planning permission for their own development. This will enable (for example) county councils to continue to provide temporary classrooms without applying for permission to the district council. But there are to be three safeguards. Proposals will have to be fully advertised, decided in public by a committee not responsible for land management, and reported to the Secretary of State if they conflict with the development plan.
The amendment is exploratory. It seems to us that there is at least a case for considering that applications should come to the full council when a local authority gives itself planning permission for development on its own land. That is the force of the amendment. I recognise that it is not always easy to structure such a measure, but it seems to us that there is at least an argument for it and we would welcome the Government's view.

Sir George Young: There is an issue here and the hon. Gentleman opened it up in his speech. His amendment would require a self-application by a local planning authority, promoted by the committee which would otherwise determine such an application—normally the planning committee—to be decided instead by the full council.
We consulted on this matter a year ago. We asked local authorities about deemed planning permission. We canvassed two options on this point. We proposed either that a service committee should not be able to determine self-applications relating to land and buildings under its control or that all such self-applications should be determined by the full council, which is the effect of amendment No. 127. After considering consultees' comments on this point, the Government concluded that the first option was the better one.
There were two reasons for this. We were persuaded by the argument that the planning committee was usually the better forum for taking planning decisions. This argument was put to us by the Association of Metropolitan

Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute and English Heritage. They convinced us that the planning committee was less likely than the full council to be influenced by non-planning matters such as political or financial considerations.
Secondly, there was the question of delay. Planning committees usually meet more often than full council. Indeed, in the shire counties it is common practice for the full council to meet only quarterly. So we decided simply to make provision that the committee or sub-committee promoting the development proposal could not also determine the planning application. We intend to achieve this in regulations which we shall be making under new section 316, and we propose to consult on those regulations before making them.
The amendment would require that the development proposals promoted by the planning committee be determined by full council. That is undesirable for the reasons that I have just mentioned. The regulations that I have mentioned will prevent a planning committee from determining its own self-applications but will otherwise leave it to the local planning authority to decide how the application should be determined. It may want to put such an application to the full council or to a policy committee or other special committee. I think that that is a better and more flexible solution. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 20

MINES AND WASTE

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 28, line 31, after 'materials' insert
'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'—[Mr. Yeo.]

SCHEDULE 1

MINES AND WASTE

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 81, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 39 and insert
'For section 105 (duty of mineral planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—

Reviews by mineral planning authorities.

105.—(1) Every mineral planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals and the depositing of mineral waste in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A), the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—
(a) to review every'.
No. 4, in page 81, leave out line 43.
No. 5, in page 82, line 1, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1A)'.
No. 6, in page 82, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".'
No. 7, in page 82, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 17 and insert
'For section 116 (special basis for compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) there is substituted—

Modification of compensation provisions in respect of mineral working etc.

116.—(1) Regulations made by virtue of this section'
No. 8, in page 82, line 20, at beginning insert—
'consisting of the winning and working of minerals or'.
No. 9, in page 82, line 22, at beginning insert 'winning and working or'
No. 10, in page 82, line 41, leave out from 'Part IV)' to end of line 42 and insert—
'for "under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11" there is substituted "by virtue of section 116".'
No. 54, in page 83, line 2, leave out paragraph (a)
No. 11, in page 83, line 8, leave out 'definition' and insert 'definitions'.
No. 12, in page 83, line 9, leave out 'is omitted' and insert—
'and "mineral compensation modifications" are omitted'.
No. 13, in page 83, line 11, after -substances'" insert—
`(da)) the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted".
No. 14, in page 86, line 21, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
'16.—(1) Schedule 11 (compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) is omitted.
(2) Without prejudice to section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made or having effect as if made by virtue of Schedule 11 to the principal Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of this paragraph, have effect as if made under section 116 of the principal Act as substituted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule.'— [Mr. Yeo]

Clause 47

MINES AND WASTE

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 55, line 44, after 'materials' insert—
`and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

SCHEDULE 7

MINES AND WASTE—SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 139, line 8, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
'10. Sections 153A, 159A and 159B are omitted.
10A. For section 167A there is substituted—

"Regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working.

167A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury provide, in relation to orders made under—

(a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development consisting of the winning or working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or
(b) section 49, 49A or 49B of this Act with respect to such winning and working or depositing,

that sections 153, 159, 167, 226 and 227 of this Act shall have effect subject, in such cases as may be prescribed, to such modifications as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations made by virtue of this section may make provision—

(a) as to circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable;
(b) for the modification of the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation is to be assessed;
(c) for the assessment of any such amount on a basis different from that on which it would otherwise have been assessed,

and may also make different provision for different cases, and incidental or supplementary provision.

(3) No regulations under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making any such regulations, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;
(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals;
(c) of planning authorities.".

10B. Sections 167B and 167C are omitted.'.

No. 173, in page 139, line 32, at end insert—
'10A. In section 251(1A) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" is omitted.'.

No. 72, in page 139, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 35 and insert—
'11. For section 251A (duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—

Reviews of mineral workings by planning authorities

251A. —(1) Every planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals, and the depositing of mineral waste, in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of section (2A) of this section, the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—
(a) to review every'.

No. 73, in page 139, leave out line 39.

No. 74, in page 139, line 40, for '(1)' substitute '(1A)".

No. 75, in page 140, line 3, at end insert—
(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed.".'.

No. 78, in page 140, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 76, in page 140, line 12, at end insert—
`(ca) the definition of "mineral compensation modifications" is omitted;'.

No. 77, in page 140, line 14, after `"substances";' insert—
'(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restrictions on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted ;'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 21

TREES

Amendment made: No. 150, in page 30, line 35 leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'. —[Mr. Yeo.]

Clause 48

TREES

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 57, line 15, leave out `and 164'.

No. 172, in page 57, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

SCHEDULE 11

PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: MINORS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 159, line 27, after '(1)(c)' insert—

`—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and
(ii)'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 22

POWER TO MAKE HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT ORDERS

Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 32, line 11, leave out Clause 22.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 128, in page 32, leave out lines 28 and 29.
No. 129, in page 32, line 38, at end insert
`and liable to a penalty determined under section (Penalties for non-compliance with hedgerow management order) below'.
No. 130, in page 32, line 38, at end insert—

'Form of and procedure applicable to orders

214F (1) A hedgerow management order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the local planning authority and the local planning authority may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they consider expedient.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect—

(a) to the form of hedgerow management orders; and
(b) to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making and confirmation of such orders.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), the regulations may make provision—

(a) that, before a hedgerow management order is confirmed by the local planning authority, notice of the making of the order shall be given to the owners and occupiers of land affected by the order and to such other persons, if any, as may be specified by the regulations;
(b) that objections and representations with respect to the order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered before the order is confirmed by the local planning authority; and
(c) that copies of the order, when confirmed by the authority, shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.

Provisional hedgerow management orders

214G (1) If it appears to a local planning authority that a hedgerow management order proposed to be made by that authority should take effect immediately without previous confirmation, they may include in the order as made by them a direction that this section shall apply to the order.
(2) Notwithstanding section 214F(1), an order which contains such a direction—

(a) shall take effect provisionally on such date as may be specified in it; and
(b) shall continue in force by virtue of this section until—

(i) the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the order was made; or
(ii) the date on which the order is confirmed, whichever first occurs.

Power for Secretary of State to make hedgerow management orders

214H (1) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local planning authority, to be expedient that a hedgerow management order or an order amending or revoking such an order should be made, he may himself make such an order.
(2) Any order so made by the Secretary of State shall have the same effect as if it had been made by the local planning authority and confirmed by them under this Chapter.
(3) the provisions of this Chapter and of any regulations made under it with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making and confirmation of any order to

which subsection (1) applies and the service of copies of it as confirmed shall have effect, subject to any necessary modifications.

(a) in relation to any proposal by the Secretary of State to make such an order
(b) in relation to the making of it by the Secretary of State; and
(c) in relation to the service of copies of it as so made.

Penalties for non-compliance with hedgerow management order

2141(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 214E(5) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding —20,000; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(2) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am surprised that the amendment has been moved formally. Will the Minister describe the Government's thinking on this so that the House can consider it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am happy to do that and I welcome the opportunity.
It may be helpful if I outline the background to the amendments. The Government White Paper "This Common Inheritance" contains a clear commitment. It says:
Following a review, to be published shortly, the Government proposes:
to enable local authorities to protect hedgerows of key importance by making preservation orders, with appropriate payments to farmers to look after them properly; … Full details will be included in a consultation paper later in 1990.
There are a number of elements which I should like to draw to the attention of the House. As promised in the White Paper, that consultation paper was published last December. It was issued as part of our wider view of preservation policies and legislation. It was, as promised, a consultation paper because there are clearly a number of value judgments that have to be made and there is the greatest chance of making the right judgments after consultation and after giving all those who have a particular knowledge, interest and concern the opportunity to study the initial proposals to suggest improvements where appropriate, and to see how differences of approach may be reconciled to devise a system that will endure and command broad respect.
The consultation paper included a number of initial judgments—that powers would be given to local authorities; that payments should be made to owners towards the costs of managing protected hedgerows; that such payment would be calculated on an average cycle of 20 years; that such payments should take the form of a lump sum payable in two instalments and should have regard to typical costs of laying and cutting; and that there would be the possibility of appealing to the Secretary of State against the making of an order or its renewal. There was a wide range of issues on which we invited comment, fully in accordance with the original timetable laid down in the White Paper commitment.
I am glad to say that the response to the consultation paper was positive, vigorous and stimulating and raised many issues of interest, from detailed points to broad


matters of principle. We received responses from a broad range of bodies—conservation groups, land-owning bodies, farmers, professional and technical associations concerned with trees and hedgerows, and submissions from the local authorities associations which, according to the White Paper, would be in the position of making hedgerow management orders. In addition, we had a not insignificant number of letters from private individuals raising a number of points of interest in relation to tree preservation orders and hedgerow management orders.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point, perhaps, of curiosity, like many colleagues I spent 100 hours or more in Committee considering the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I think that every member of that Committee thought that that Act and the work that was done in Committee and subsequently on the Floor of the House had solved the hedgerow problem. In these representations, has it been made at all clear what the shortcomings of that Act were?

Mr. Baldry: In fairness, I do not think that those who made representations or came to discuss the possibilities of hedgerow management orders sought to discuss in detail what they perceived as shortcomings in the present statutory framework. The House knows that there has been substantial loss of hedgerows since the last war, and I take it as accepted, because I recognise that the House wishes to make progress this evening, that the House acknowledges the considerable contribution that hedgerows make to our natural heritage and to providing natural nature reserves. I think that all those whom I consulted wished to see a regime which will endure to protect key hedgerows.
It was because of the detailed and extensive responses to the consultation paper, and because in part there were clearly areas of principle and detail on which there were a number of differences, that I felt it important that I should have the opportunity to discuss those issues at first hand with a number of those who had written to me. I therefore invited a wide range of organisations to come to the Department of the Environment to discuss the proposals with me in greater detail.
Those organisations ranged from the Ramblers Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the local authorities associations to those representing professional interests and a host of other interests. The meetings took place during March and April. They were set up as soon as the formal consultation period had come to an end and it was possible to see the issues involved.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I was making every effort to press on with the timetable as speedily as was humanly possible. I hope, too, that anyone who attended any of those meetings will have reported that they were positive and constructive and were conducted by a Minister who wanted to find the optimum way forward to fulfil our White Paper commitment on hedgerow management orders.
It should be put on record—I make no criticism of anyone—that hedgerow management orders have never been intended to be part of the Bill. None of the organisation that came to see me suggested that this Bill, which was then going through the House, would provide a statutory opportunity to tackle tree protection orders or

hedgerow management orders. The timetable towards which I had been working did not contemplate hedgerow management orders being incorporated in this Bill—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the Minister was going on to tell us what timetable he envisaged. The environment White Paper was published last September; it declared the protection of hedgerows to be Government policy. The consultation period ended slightly more than three months ago. Given that the Minister's consultations with interested groups finished about two months ago, and given that this is the first available vehicle for such legislation—it may require secondary legislation to work out the details later—will the Minister say yes in principle now and leave the details till later, or will he put off the matter to an indefinite future date?

Mr. Baldry: I suppose that every Minister wishes that every statute would provide for Ministers to do whatever they liked later and when it was convenient. Throughout the negotiations we have moved forward as fast as we could—since the White Paper of last October, through the consultation paper in December and through the three months of consultations. It takes a little time for people to analyse the submissions that are sent in. Meetings were set up in March and April for discussions with a wide variety of groups. In courtesy to them, we wanted to hear what they had to say and to consider their views. One of the points put forcefully to me by the local authority associations was that they wanted a system that would endure. It is therefore important that we devise a system that commands universal respect and support.
A number of key issues emerged from the consultations. I am not tempted to urge the House to grab this opportunity to set up a statutory framework because I am not convinced that those issues have been satisfactorily resolved. If we move now, various groups would fall out and that would be detrimental to what we are trying to do.
Compensation is another key element. The White Paper commitment is that local authorities should make appropriate payments to owners. It is clear from the amendments that have been tabled and from the debate in another place that there are a number of different views on this. There are those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), will tell the House that they take the view that hedgerows should simply be part of the planning system. If someone wants to remove a hedgerow of a certain length he should apply for planning permission, and there would be no question of compensation—planning permission would either be granted or not. There are those, on the other hand, who believe that farmers receive far too much money for doing things that they should be doing anyway. And there are those who fall somewhere between the two positions. There are those like members of the CLA and the NFU who not surprisingly feel that there should be compensation—

Mr. Soley: The commitment that the Government made in their White Paper was to a scheme based on compensation—that is why the amendment moved in Committee prescribed that. Consultations are all well and good, but Parliament is sovereign. A Committee of this House decided in favour of the amendment, which was in


line with the Government's thinking as stated in their White Paper. What weight does the Minister attach to the Committee's views during the consultation procedure?

Mr. Baldry: I am genuinely grateful to the Committee, because it has enabled all hon. Members to focus their minds on hedgerow management orders sooner than they would otherwise have done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for having raised the matter. Ultimately, however, the House must take a view. A probing amendment was tabled in Committee, but the House must decide on the best public policy.
The Country Landowners Association, which wants compensation to be paid, said in its note to hon. Members today that it makes sense for the Government to announce on Report—which I shall do later—our intention to introduce a hedgerow management order scheme with compensation, rather than rushing through a scheme which may not have the correct statutory framework.
I hope that we shall be able to produce clear proposals on how the scheme will work. The House realises that, even if we were to accept the provision included in the Bill in Committee, it would still require a host of secondary details. It would require regulations, and we would be no closer to a working scheme than we are now.
A number of issues have been raised, such as whether compensation should be paid and how that should be done. I hope that the House will decide that it would be best to proceed with hedgerow management orders and tree preservation orders on the timetable that every group that came to see me accepted as reasonable. I envisage making a clear statement of intent about the detail of the scheme by later this summer, so far as is humanly possible, and thereafter to introduce legislation at the first possible moment. As the House knows, the decision on when legislation is introduced is not within my gift.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us how many hedgerows that would be governed by such an order are lost per month or per year? If there is a delay, there will be a loss to our environmental heritage. Many people are concerned about that.

Mr. Baldry: It is because we are concerned about loss that this provision was included in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman should put that point in context. Even if the House were to accept a provision this evening, further work would be required, and we could not necessarily guarantee that the statutory framework would be correct.
Are local authorities the right organisations to protect woodlands in rural areas under tree preservation orders? A number of similar issues have been raised. I want to ensure that we get the answers right, with the support of the various groups involved. Until the amendment was inserted by the Committee, I do not think that any of the organisations which made representations had expressed concern about the timetable. They recognised and supported the general approach of the local authority associations that, in all fairness, it was necessary to devise a scheme that would endure. Therefore, it needed to command broad support from the Ramblers Association at one end of the spectrum to the Country Landowners Association at the other.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: We have heard what my hon. Friend has to say about consultation; we have also heard that he expects to make an announcment this summer. Can he tell us whether the announcement will be made before the House rises for the summer recess? That would certainly influence my decision.

Mr. Baldry: I certainly hope that it will be possible for me to give the details to all the organisations which come to see me—and, indeed, to the House—before the recess. I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to make progress.

Mr. Soley: That is not a very convincing reply. We have about a month—perhaps five weeks—before the House rises. Will the Minister be able to present his detailed statement within five or six weeks? Let us suppose that the House rises on 1 August. Will he be able to present it by then?

Mr. Baldry: I hope that I made my commitment clear. I would include only one caveat. I have consulted many organisations already. Obviously, I want to make certain that we receive the answer yes, and I shall want to engage in more consultation as I begin to firm up our proposals. I shall be happy to keep in touch with hon. Members who, as a result of the amendments, have signalled their interest in hedgerow management orders. I am grateful for their interest, and I shall continue to acquaint them with developments in the negotiations.
There are, however, a number of bodies with which I must keep in touch. I cannot guarantee that, for example, local authority associations, the Council for the Protection of Rural England or the National Farmers Union will not say, "We shall have considerable difficulties with such a scheme—can you think about it a bit more?" Although, as I have said, I want an affirmative answer, I shall also do all that is humanly possible—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) —to ensure that the House, and the organisations involved, receive a clear statement of intent before the summer recess.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Actually, I was proposing to make a speech. I was going to say, among other things, that I would rather have a bird in the hand than a handful of caveats, but I will say it some other time.

Mr. Baldry: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I repeat what I said earlier. If I thought that we could grab a general, all-prevailing power for Ministers to do whatever they wanted, I should be only too glad to take the opportunity. I do not, however, want the House to enshrine such a measure in a statutory framework only to find that the framework is wrong. Even if an enabling power were taken, and even if we could guarantee at this stage that we had got the statutory framework right, detailed regulation would still be required in due course to give the scheme substance.
It is for those reasons that we have tabled amendment No. 116, the aim of which is to delete a clause introduced in Committee. For the same reasons, we cannot commend the alternative amendments. I hope that I have


demonstrated the Government's commitment and determination to protect hedgerows of key importance by enabling local authorities to make protection orders.
There is no question of the Government's scrapping measures that would ultimately have given hedgerows statutory protection, as some newspapers have inaccurately reported. In the White Paper we undertook to consult, and we have done so. As a result of our consultations, we have discussed the best way forward in detail. Following those discussions, we shall present proposals in support of the commitment that we made in "This Common Inheritance" as soon as possible. Our aim is to help to protect an important part of that inheritance—our hedgerows.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall give credit where it is due. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the Government were "hedging", and they are; but I understand the complexity of the issue.
I have known the Minister for much longer than either of us has been in the House. We used often to oppose one another in another place. However, the Government have been backing off from making the decision for a long time. They were going to make a decision about looking after hedgerows in national parks after a commitment in the 1987 general election manifesto, but they backed off. At last, and belatedly, they made the decision in the White Paper published last October. They went through the process of consultation and many of us believe that we cannot afford to wait any longer. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made a pertinent point.
The clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in Committee is now in the Bill. It allows the detail to be added to it. Hon. Members and all the interested parties will feel far more secure if there is a peg on which to hang the detail. If we throw this out, there will be no certainty about what will happen next. With the best intentions, we all know that civil servants, Ministers and the other advisers combined can often spin things out for a long time. It is five weeks until we rise for the summer recess, followed by a two and half month recess, with an announcement possibly being made outside sitting time and then a promise of a Bill, which will have to compete for parliamentary time in a Session that will be shortened because of a general election and that may mean that we will not get anything at all.
The interventions by the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Lancaster were evidence of the fact that Parliament is becoming frustrated. We know that about 4,000 miles of hedgerow are lost every year. We know that we have the ridiculous anomaly that while the Government can protect buildings, sites of special scientific interest, trees and landscapes, they cannot protect hedgerows. It is the only part of the environmental landscape that we cannot protect.
Here in England, of all countries, where part of our history is about enclosure, and where hedgerows are a most important part of the landscape for the protection of wildlife, it is important that we protect them. This may be a little matter within the panoply of Government environmental legislation, but it is a test of whether the Government are green in general, green in principle, or green in practice. The Minister could and should accept

the clause. The Government's amendment to get rid of it is a sign that, sadly, the Government are not willing to manifest their commitment, although they could so do.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Member referred to hedgerows in England. As a Welshman, may I invite him to extend what he is saying to Welsh hedgerows?

Mr. Hughes: I made a historical point about the battle being more important in England, but the legislation applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and protects hedgerows in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.

Mr. William McKelvey: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not apply to Scotland as the problem does not exist in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: The issue applies to all parts of the United Kingdom although the legislation is limited to England and Wales. The hedgerows that we want to protect are those in England and Wales. The historical battle about closure was primarily in England. The issue now is whether we take this legislative opportunity. If the Minister persuades the House to vote out the new clause, it may be a long time before we have a substitute. That is not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will think again.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: This is more than the 11th hour —the clock has gone round several times and I find myself, for the second time in two days, following the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and saying that we have quite a lot in common. I tried to do something about this problem once before, when I promoted a private Member's Bill to introduce hedgerow protection orders.
Unfortunately, that Bill was blocked by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I am not making that as a political point because the same thing happened to the attempt by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who introduced a similar private Member's Bill before I became a Member of Parliament. Here we are, a good few years later, still losing hedgerows. In the early 1980s, they were being lost at the rate of 4,000 miles a year. Nobody knows what happened in the late 1980s, because the aerial surveys on which the earlier figures are based are no longer made.
Even if I were to concede that there has been an improvement, as I do, and that some farmers are planting new hedgerows, the fact is that hedgerows are a vital part of our heritage and the loss of any is a problem that deserves to be met with the appropriate legislative framework to ensure that it cannot continue.
Should the House take the opportunity to address that problem tonight? When I knew of my appointment as a member of the Standing Committee, I wondered whether I should use that opportunity to take yet another crack at protecting hedgerows. When I spoke to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, it pointed out that the consultation period had only just ended, and queried whether it was the right time to press the matter. I responded that I thought that it was, because I wanted a clear undertaking from the Government that they would legislate so that no more hedgerows would be lost.
On that basis, I tabled an off-the-peg amendment. Such amendments have their disadvantages. My amendment lays down a local authority framework without providing


the resources or requiring it to take action—and that is not necessarily the best way of tackling the problem. Nevertheless, it had the advantage, once the Committee voted to incorporate it in the Bill, of ensuring tonight's debate and the attendance of my hon. Friend the Minister after a flurry of activity.
We all understand the difficulties of sorting things out between the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. None of us would like to have been in the shoes of my hon. Friend the Minister in trying to persuade them to bring forward something in time to satisfy the House tonight. Therefore, I am not all surprised that we do not have a perfect solution before us.
We have, however, received a clear undertaking from the Minister that the Government have made a commitment not only in principle—that was in the White Paper—but to presenting details. I expect my hon. Friend not only to give his best efforts in respect of the undertaking that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) but to perform and deliver, and to announce in the House before it rises for the summer recess the precise details of his proposals. I want to see that legislation at the top of the list in the Queen's Speech this autumn.

Mr. Moate: The CPRE said that a vague promise of future legislation would be of little comfort to anyone. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has given as specific a commitment to legislation as we have ever heard? He not only made a firm commitment but promised that the details will be forthcoming. It is surely more important to get the scheme right than to rush something through tonight, perhaps wrongly. Are we not right to accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister?

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. The importance of the issue explains the presence of so many of my hon. Friends tonight, many of whom made representations to Ministers and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. No one seeing that degree of feeling could possibly have the cheek to return to the House and say, "I am sorry but we could not make the deadline, and there is no room in this autumn's programme."
I am serving what I consider to be a very powerful notice on the Government that their commitment must be honoured. On that basis, I support the Government in deleting the unsatisfactory scheme, which I used only as a device in bringing pressure to bear on them.

Mr. Dalyell: I am something of a surrogate for my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is chairing an important Council of Europe committee and regrets that he cannot be present. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) went arm in arm endlessly during the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the question of hedgerows. They were greatly influenced by the work of Marian Shoard, author of "The Theft of the Countryside", and by the statistics that she and others produced. We made a case which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who was in charge

of that Bill, completely took on board. The Government did their best to be as effective as they could in that legislation.
I understand, however, from my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and certainly know from my own knowledge, that no statistics on the loss of hedgerows have been published since the mid-1980s. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but the Minister has the best advice from the Box. Are we really to believe, given the importance of the subject, that there is no information on the rough total lost in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989? One would not be unreasonable and say that the Government should have figures for 1990—although that might be desirable—let alone for the first few months of this year, but surely we could be given some facts about the extent of the grubbing up that took place at the end of the 1980s.

Mr. Baldry: A survey is now being undertaken, and I hope to be able to give the House the figures in the not-too-distant future, but the process takes a little time.
I do not believe that there is any dispute, either in the House or among most of the groups involved, that, both just after the war and more recently, more hedgerows have been lost than we should like. I shall certainly read the Official Report of the Standing Committee debates on the 1981 Act to find out whether what was said at that time is relevant to the schemes that we seek to introduce.
I shall, of course, let the hon. Gentleman have the fullest possible statistics and other information available, and I hope that the current survey will show more clearly the extent of more recent losses.

Mr. Dalyell: I have an Adjournment debate about Mar Lodge later, so, for reasons of self-interest and because my hon. Friends want to make progress, I shall leave it at that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would be a pity to delete clause 22 in return for a vague promise that a statement may be made before the summer recess. If no statement is made, tough; we shall not have a statement, and there will be nothing that we can do about it.
My definition of the word "precise" does not accord with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). My hon. Friend the Minister told us vaguely that he would make a statement if possible, but it may not be possible, whereas the clause is before us now.
In my part of the world, we are intensely proud of our hedgerows, but they are expensive to maintain. When people come from the towns to relax in the countryside, they talk about its natural beauty. There is nothing natural about it; it is maintained, and has been maintained for centuries, by farmers' hard work. But farmers are cutting their staff now, and their incomes are under pressure.
The clause represents one way in which farmers could be paid for doing something that is in everyone's interest. They would not be producing something that had to be put into storage; they would be producing and maintaining something that is a joy to behold.
It would be a great pity to lose this opportunity. We may have to wait years for legislation. If the Bill, including this provision, were in situ, it would be the Minister's job to produce appropriate regulations to make it work. Our farmers are entitled to such remuneration for maintaining the hedges for the benefit of the rest of the country.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I shall speak in strong support of my hon. Friend the Minister, but my reasons for doing so may be different from those we have heard so far. The idea of 4,000 miles of hedges—that is the figure being bandied about the Chamber—is a fiction. In the 1960s and 1970s, under the influence of the farm improvement grant, which provided about one third of the capital cost of buildings and other alterations to farmland, a great many hedges were removed. The geography of farms was changed to adjust to modern farming conditions, and in large areas, especially in the eastern counties, many hedges were removed.
Today, the situation has altered. The farm improvement grant finished at the end of the Labour Government's period in office, or perhaps soon after this Government came to power. When I was a junior Minister responsible for agriculture, I asked my officials what evidence they had of the wholesale destruction of hedges. Even though we had a network of officers throughout the country, we were talking in terms of only a few hundred yards here and there—not the massive figure of 4,000 miles. That figure is mythical.
I do not claim to be an expert on many things, but I do know about hedges. The hedges on my farm were a matter of considerable pride to me, and to my father before me. After the war, in 1947, every inch was cut by hand, using shears.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: By shears, surely.

Mr. Wiggin: I said by shears: my hon. Friend obviously did not hear me correctly. We took a lot of trouble with our hedges. About one seventh of them were laid each year to maintain what is, after all, a growing plant. I am extremely nervous about the proposition that the Government should now take it upon themselves to start dictating—albeit for perfectly genuine reasons, which I understand—in connection with the preservation of growing plants.
We have tree preservation orders, and the same criticism applies to them. Members of the Select Committee who went to examine the aftermath of the gale in 1987 will recall the devastation we saw, and will recognise that a large number of the trees had not been harvested when they should have been. They had been allowed to grow too old, to the point at which, although they looked nice, their benefit had been lost. Nature, as always, evened things up in the great gale. I am concerned at the suggestion that bureaucrats and officials should start interfering in the day-to-day management of our farm land.
I wonder what would have happened if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had been a Member of Parliament in 1700 and a preservation of the countryside Bill had come before the House. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would have sought to prohibit the planting of hedges. He would have said, "I do not want the countryside changed. It looks nice as it is."
I have today visited Exeter with members of the Select Committee. We travelled there by road and back by rail, and I can only say that I did not see one inch of hedge being dug up anywhere. I saw a beautiful countryside. Our countryside has probably never looked more beautiful than it is looking this damp summer.
I hope that, rather than being pressed by the weight of opinion, which in my view does not come from the countryside, the Government will be very cautious about proceeding with any scheme to interfere in such detailed matters.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is interesting that, when my hon. Friend the Minister gave his undertaking, there were cries—jeers almost—from Opposition Members who have never held office. Unlike them, my hon. Friend knows full well the problems of consultation.
I put it to my hon. Friend that he has one problem. If he is to keep his undertakings, which I accept totally, he will have to make certain that his civil servants perform and deliver. When I held his post, I had a certain task to do, which gave me great pleasure—winding up the GLC housing estates. I said that it had to be done by 31 March of a particular year. I was told, "Minister, this is not possible." I said, "I am not interested in whether it is possible; it is going to be done." If my hon. Friend will pursue that line, I shall be satisfied with what he has said.
There is no doubt that there is a cry in the countryside, as well as in the towns, for hedgerows that have been grubbed up without mercy to be saved now. I agree that, at this stage, this clause, which my hon. Friend has said is defective, should be removed, and I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's undertaking.

Mr. Soley: We have received a tragically inadequate response from the Government. The Minister has given a commitment tonight—or, rather, has gone half way to giving a commitment, if that is what the words "possibly" and "hopes to" mean—that he cannot meet. If the hon. Gentleman's speech meant anything at all, that must be so, for reasons that I shall explain.
Let me quote from page 84 of the Government's document, "This Common Inheritance", in which they outline their environmental strategy:
The Government proposes"—
the House will note the word "proposes", which implies that the Government knew what they wanted to do—
to enable local authorities to protect hedgerows of key importance by making preservation orders with appropriate payments to farmers to look after them properly.
The House will have heard the Minister say that he wanted much more consultation because there were many different views about what should happen—some people believe that there should be compensation and others believe that there should be none. In other words, even now, the Government have not made up their mind in principle about the compensation issue—unless the Minister meant to say that he has decided in favour of compensation, in which case all we need are the details of that compensation. If he is saying that, he could just about deliver before the House rises for the recess.
However, if he is saying that he wants to take into account all the different views on whether we should use compensation or some other method, as it appeared—we can all read Hansard in the morning to see—he cannot deliver that commitment of providing a statement to the House before it rises, unless we sit right through August. As everyone knows, the House is likely to rise between 19 and 26 July—in about five weeks' time—so the Minister has just five weeks to get that commitment from his officials and to deliver the statement to the House.
Does the Under-Secretary think that he can hold anything over the Government? I think that he used the


phrase, "I can hold them to this very firmly." He cannot. He has no power after the vote tonight. If a Minister goes up to him in a few weeks' time and says, "I'm sorry, I wanted to do it, I thought I could, but frankly I can't", the Under-Secretary is lumbered and there is nothing that he can do about it. There is nothing that any other Member of Parliament can do about it.
The reality is that the consultation procedure has been going on for some time. As Opposition Members have said, this issue is not new; my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) introduced a Hedgerows Bill, which had cross-party support, but was blocked by the Government.
Remember when the Government launched "This Common Inheritance" under the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now chairman of the Conservative party. They said that they were talking about not paper commitments but real commitments. In that paper they said that they proposed to protect hedgerows by local authorities giving compensation. There were no ifs or buts about it, no dithering or fudging. However, tonight we have heard nothing but dithering and fudging.
The Minister's speech does not stand up to analysis even as to what the Government are thinking of doing. They are thinking of listening to the views of the Country Landowners Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural Engalnd and all those other organisations on whether we have compensation, unless, perhaps, the Minister wants to stand up and say that I am wrong and that there will be compensation. Is that what he is saying, or has he not decided?

Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that he has inadvertently misinterpreted what I said. I told the House that among the groups that have made representations and among hon. Members, as evidenced in the debate this evening, there are varying views on a suitable scheme and on how appropriate payments should be made. I want to ensure that, as far as possible, we find a way forward that commands support and agreement—as the local authorities associations have said we need to find a system that endures. That is what I want to achieve and what I am determined that we shall achieve.

Mr. Soley: We have come a little further—the Minister is now saying that there will definitely be a compensation scheme, so we do not need to listen to people who express the view that there should be no compensation. Is that correct?

Mr. Baldry: I am seeking to fulfil the commitment that is clearly set out in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman has repeated what was said in the White Paper, which states that there should be appropriate payments for key hedgerows.
I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has had many discussions with organisations such as the CPRE. In its consultation paper its advice to me was that it questioned whether local authorities were the right bodies to make the appropriate payments. It suggested, as part of its consultation paper, that payments could be made as part of the agricultural support scheme. Those are the sorts of issues that one has to consider.
As I have made clear to the House, it is our intention to deliver that White Paper commitment. We also have to ensure that the legislative framework is appropriate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made clear, and that we do not simply clutch at any passing legislative peg to hook it on hoping that we get it right.

Mr. Soley: The Minister says that there will be payments that will or will not be administered through the local authority, but he has not yet decided, and that another way of administering it may be through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the Minister is so uncertain about the detail and is unable to provide it to the House within the next five weeks, he cannot make that commitment. Then he moves the ground a little and says that he is committed to delivering his commitment in the White Paper. When will that be? The Queen's Speech will be formulated in September. The Minister will need to have not just the detail but something that looks like an Act that can be passed before the next general election takes place which, at the latest, will be next July. A Bill will therefore have to be introduced by November or December of this year.
Is the Minister saying to the House—I look forward to another intervention—that he is confident that he can present a Bill to the House in November or December and that he will give a guarantee that if an election does not take place before July—we accept that it may take place before then, but the Minister cannot control that—there will be legislation on the statute book by July? Is the Minister giving the House that commitment?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman will have heard, as did every other hon. Member, the commitment that I gave to the House. Each hon. Member must decide whether he or she finds that commitment one which he or she can support.

Mr. Soley: That is what I call a fudge with a vengeance. I have never heard anthing so waffly in all my life. The Minister said earlier, "Trust me, I'm a good man; I shall deliver." I am sure that he wants us to believe that. I am sure that all Conservative Members desperately want to believe him. However, the timetable is that which I have just laid out. It is not in our hands, or those of the Minister. It is there. The Minister had got to meet it, or else he will have to say—as I suspect the truth is right now —that he cannot guarantee it but that he will try, although there is a very good chance that he will not be able to deliver.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to introduce a Bill and have it passed. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Opposition will not oppose a single dot or comma in that legislation, or will he do his usual fudge and mudge?

Mr. Soley: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an even better commitment. The Opposition will accept the amendment that the Committee accepted. That can go through right now. We got it through the Committee with the help of several Tory Back Benchers. They voted for it; we voted for it. We shall vote for it tonight. I challenge Conservative Members to vote for it as well, if they are serious about their commitment to the countryside and to the environment.
We need to remember that hedgerows are being destroyed. I accept that there is an argument about the numbers. We also know that many of them are very old and that they are vital to wildlife. If the message goes out from the House that we intend to legislate to protect hedgerows but that there will be a gap of some months during which hedgerows can be destroyed, those who want to will understand that now is the time to do so. That is the wrong message to send out from the House.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the hedgerows that he criticises people for having ripped out were ripped out by urban man who moved into the countryside, bought a cottage or house there, and, as his first act, ripped out the hedge around his cottage or house and erected a brick wall instead?

Mr. Soley: It is amazing to think that, using the same argument, the hon. Gentleman would vote against a tree preservation order. [Interruption.] Now we have the truth. Several Tory Members would like to get rid of tree preservation orders. I wonder whether the Government agree with that. Do they want to get rid of tree preservation orders? I know that the Tory party is divided and that it is in desperate trouble these days. If, however, the Government are committed to green issues, it is vital that they give a commitment that they will not get rid of tree preservation orders and that they will protect hedgerows.

Mr. Gill: The point is that many people who speak about these issues do not understand that trees, like human beings, have a finite life and that people who live in the countryside have a better understanding of such issues than the people who live in towns and believe that trees live for ever. The countryman well knows that trees must he felled sooner or later and replaced. If the hon. Gentleman considered the countryside in detail, he would see how many new trees are being planted everywhere today.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Soley: The Government also have a finite life and they will soon be felled.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) knows—as do most of his colleagues—that the tree preservation orders were a good thing. The fact that there are some arguments about some of the issues is irrelevant, and the same is true for hedgerows. As I have said, we can argue about the number of miles of hedgerows that have been demolished, but hedgerows are important for maintaining the wild life pattern in many areas. We want to keep them.
When the Government opposed us in Committee, I wondered who the assassin would be. I thought it would be the Treasury, so I tabled a holding amendment that would have protected hedgerows but allowed compensation and payments to be dealt with later. That would have got the Minister out of his hole now—he could have protected hedgerows now and considered the details later if he so wished.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has decided to turn the debate into a political shooting match. He implied that there was a sense of urgency, and I thought that that was the view of the whole House. Can he explain why, when he and his party tabled amendments at the start of the proceedings, there was no amendment about hedgerows? Why did the Opposition wait until I tabled such an amendment?

Mr. Soley: The reason is simple—I wanted such an amendment to be tabled by a Tory because I knew that it would have a better chance of being accepted, and I was right. If I had tabled such an amendment, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would have voted for it. Other members of the Committee who are present today will correct me if I am wrong but my memory is that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, but did not press it to a vote. I had to step in to do that.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why I am turning the debate into a shooting match. If ducks keep standing in front of me and ask to be shot, I shall shoot them. It is as simple as that. I suppose that that will not do much for my green image.
In all seriousness, the House now has an opportunity to ensure that the idea reaches the statute book. We won the argument in Committee—we won it with the help of Conservative votes and we won it after reasoned argument. The majority of interested organisations outside the House support the amendment. We also know that, for the reasons I have given, the Minister is unlikely to be able to deliver anything like the commitment in the White Paper before the next general election. In other words, if hon. Members want to protect hedgerows and to ensure that we win the argument before the general election, I urge them to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 153.

Division No. 183]
[10.03 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, W.
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F 'rest)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Favell, Tony
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mans, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, Sir George
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grylls, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayes, Jerry
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Price, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hill, James
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Irving, Sir Charles
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shelton, Sir William


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Squire, Robin


Knowles, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony





Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wareing, Robert N.


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Walden, George
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Walker, Bill (T'side North)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Galloway, George


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Allen, Graham
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Alton, David
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Beckett, Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beggs, Roy
Home Robertson, John


Beith, A. J.
Hood, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Bellotti, David
Hoyle, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Buckley, George J.
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lamond, James


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Carr, Michael
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum A.


Crowther, Stan
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tarn
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Edwards, Huw
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris






Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Nellist, Dave
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Speller, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wray, Jimmy


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Short, Clare
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2

LISTED BUILDINGS CONSERVATION AREAS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 89, line 13 at end insert
'In section 76(1) of that Act after "direct", there is Inserted "(whether the building is occupied or not)" and after "section 54" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (4).".'.
The amendment is entirely concerned with the operation of conservation areas. It corrects an anomaly in present legislation. If one owns a property in a conservation area, one must have planning permission to alter the appearance of the building. One cannot proceed without that planning permission. Similarly, a local authority can take action against a landlord if he transgresses the terms of a conservation area. However, there is nothing in law to cover an owner-occupier if his property is allowed to go to rack and ruin.
It may be argued that that should be left to the individual. In that case, we should not have conservation areas. If we have conservation areas, their terms must be applied universally. At the moment that is not the case.
I could show my hon. Friend the Minister examples of that not far from the House. It is a scandal and gives great offence to people who try to comply with the terms of the conservation area and keep their properties in good order and in accordance with the terms laid down for the area. Either the local authorities or English Heritage must have powers to proceed in those cases. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Mr. Yeo: Section 76 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that section 54 of the Act, which deals with urgent works to preserve unoccupied listed buildings, shall apply to a building in a conservation area as it applies to listed buildings if it appears to him that the preservation of that building is important for maintaining the character or appearance of the conservation area.
Amendment No. 61 would allow the Secretary of State to make a direction on an occupied building. It would ensure that, if a direction is made under section 76 on an

occupied building in a conservation area, the local authority could then carry out urgent works on any part of that building, after giving the owner the requisite seven days' notice of its intention. The existing section 54 provides that, if a building is occupied, works may be carried out only to those parts which are not in use.
Section 76 empowers the Secretary of State to make a direction that the powers in section 54, to carry out urgent works to a listed building, shall apply to a specified unlisted building in a conservation area. Such a direction does not require the local authority to carry out the works, but it means that it can do so if it wishes. The effect of the amendment would be that, following a direction by the Secretary of State, the powers available to the local authority for dealing with a particular unlisted building in poor repair would be wider than the powers available to the same local authority for dealing with a listed building. I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend intends in his amendment.
More importantly, the powers in section 54 of the Act are deliberately restricted to unoccupied buildings or, in the case of partially occupied buildings, to those parts which are not in use. These powers are principally aimed at the preservation of listed buildings, and they give local authorities powers to carry out works which appear to them to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a building after giving not less than seven days, notice of the intention to carry out the works. This is potentially a draconian power, and the Government have taken the view that it should not be available in the case of occupied buildings, for obvious reasons related to the invasion of privacy. We have looked into this question from time to time, but the furthest we have been prepared to go is to provide for urgent works to be carried out on the unused parts of partially occupied buildings, and that remains our position. In the light of that—

Mr. Benyon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if such a building is occupied, there is nothing that any authority can do about its appalling state of repair? In such circumstances, is he really happy about the fact that two houses might be completely derelict in a marvellous street of historic houses in an area of great historical and conservation importance?

Mr. Yeo: No, I cannot say that I am happy—no one would be happy about that—but we must balance our real anxiety about the possible decay of buildings in those circumstances with the attendant risks of giving local authorities powers to enter and occupy buildings regardless of the wishes of the occupant. That is a significant consideration.
As I have said, we have gone as far as giving local authorities the power to deal with the unoccupied portions of partially occupied buildings. There are real reasons for hesitating before giving local authorities the power to move into someone's house to carry out works while chat person is living there, regardless of how urgently those works may be needed. That is why the Government cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Benyon: I am not happy about that, but there is obviously no point in pressing my amendment. However, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think further about this matter, because the position will not get any better; it will only get worse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8

LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREAS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES—SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 140, line 29, after 'both' insert

'; and in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.
No. 175, in page 143, line 45, at end insert
'; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'
No. 176, in page 145, line 25, at end insert
'; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Actf—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 3

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Mr. Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 98, line 48, at end insert—
`(c) population forecasts issued by central government and by independent agencies, as well as district and county population growth forecasts in relation to specific local areas, and the impact of these forecasts on household formation.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 136, in page 104, line 12, at end insert
`(9) (c) to the likely resources available;
(d) to the capacity of existing facilities to service the increased population resulting from new residential development, and where existing facilities are not deemed to be adequate to meet increased needs, no further residential development shall be permitted unless the capital works required to service any new residential development have been or will he provided'.

Mr. Steen: The amendment was tabled by several of my hon. Friends. I wish to deal with both amendments Nos. 133 and 136. Amendment No. 133 is about population forecasts. The amendment proposes to add to paragraph 16 of schedule 3, under the heading "Structure and local plans", a provision whereby population forecasts will be included, discussed and considered. The reason for that is simple.
The Department of the Environment produces estimates of future household formations which are handed down to the county councils. In theory the estimates can be challenged, but in practice they tend to be accepted as tablets of stone. The county councils allocate a certain number of households to each of the district, town or borough local authorities, which are obliged to find room for the new buildings.
A group of people in Holborn deal with population statistics. There are about 2,000 people there, but about six of them specifically deal with household formations, which are not the same as houses. They pass the information over to a group of civil servants in the Department of the Environment. I do not know how many dozens of civil servants in the Department analyse and forecast household formations.
The figures are then massaged and sent down like darts to the county councils. Councils are told that they must provide in their structure plan for so many households in their area. For example, my county council may be asked to provide for 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 households. That request is based on figures which emanate from Holborn and go on to the Department of the Environment. Devon or any other county council receives the figures. Although technically it can challenge them, it has no machinery to do so. How can the council challenge figures which suddenly arrive on its desk? The council then has to cut up the figures and distribute them around the district councils. It is similar to bidding. The county council says to each council, "How many can you manage?" It has to share the household formation figures around the councils. The councils then set about their local plans, which are the strategy for the area for the next five years. They have to include the number of households that the council has been told by the county council, the county council has been told by the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Environment has been told by the Holborn statisticians is required in that area.
The trouble is that the household formation figures are estimates. They are simply computerised figures and they are not always correct. An analysis of the Department of the Environment's 1985-based household projections shows how the rate of household formation is expected to decline sharply in every county in the country. For example, 32 per cent. fewer households will be formed in Devon in the last five years of the 1990s than were formed in the first five years of the 1980s. Overall there is a 45 per cent. drop in household formations throughout Great Britain.
Figures are handed down like tablets of stone from the Department of the Environment to the county councils and local councils draw up their local plans on the basis of them. The figures have dropped by 45 per cent. We are still building houses on the basis of those false projections. It is rather like a train running at 125 mph—it takes a few miles to stop. We are continuing to build houses on an inaccurate premise which was produced by computer.
Amendment No. 133 provides no more than a means whereby the estimates of household formation can be considered during the consultation period of the local plans, so that they can be revised in the light of local need and local land use. The importance of the amendment is not just to allow the national figures to be considered but to introduce local needs and local land use.
10.30 pm
We know that more houses will be needed during the coming decade to provide for new households, but new homes do not necessarily mean new housebuilding on green-field sites. For example, we do not need to release more and more land to satisfy the cry for new homes. The County Planning Officers Society recent figures show a national picture of 23 per cent. more land identified for housing development than is required by the structure plan building rates during the next five years. In the hard-pressed south-east an astonishing 58 per cent. more land has been identified for housing development than is required. The Government forecast that 550,000 new households will he required in the south-east alone by the turn of the century, yet the County Planning Officers Society says that 58 per cent. more land is earmarked for housing in the south-east than is required.
As I have bored hon. Members with this on many occasions, they will know that approximately 180,000 acres of public land is lying vacant, derelict, dormant, underused or underutilised. About 80,000 acres of it is on the Government land register, but that has not been brought up to date for nearly two years. Therefore, we do not really know how many acres of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land there is in public ownership. All that we know is that there are more than 100,000 acres of public vacant land, probably near 180,000, and probably nearer 300,000 if one includes the private sector as well. Since it is perfectly good building land, why do we have to build on green-field sites and allocate 58 per cent. more land in the the south-east for building?
Not only have we got surplus land, we have also got some 99,200 local authority houses and flats lying empty, of which 31,000 are in the Government sector. Those buildings should be repaired and used before we build more houses on green-field sites which do not need to be built on.
Amendment No. 133 suggests that, when local plans are being drawn up by district and borough councils, regard should be had for the local need and what the local people have to say.
I cannot impress too strongly on the House even at this hour just how serious the matter is. If we get our population forecasts wrong we will end up building the wrong number of households in the wrong places and we will take more and more land which we do not need to take to build houses that do not need to be built.
Amendment No. 136 deals with what should be included in local plans. Under the Bill, such plans will be statutorily required in every part of the country. I welcome that first-rate initiative by the Government. I am glad to say that South Hams was one of the first local authorities to operate local plans, even before they were required by law.
The amendment is necessary because good planning practice should ensure a link between new housing development and physical and social infrastructure. That link should be set out clearly in the local plan.
Good planning practice, as operated by a responsible local authority, should make sure that the requisite infrastructure to service new development is in place. That has sometimes been lacking in the past; as a result, development has sometimes outstripped local infrastructural facilities.
Even South Hams was overwhelmed by housing development during the past decade. It swamped the existing infrastructure. About 48,000 houses were built in Devon between 1981 and 1991, and I am afraid that the infrastructure could not keep pace with the number of new households that resulted.
A lack of school places was the immediate result. Rapid population growth consequent on large housing development in one area meant that the county council had to ask the Government for a large basic needs allocation in its annual capital guidelines, so that new schools could be built. However, when school construction is slow, or the population increases faster than predicted, the education authority has to do what it can. In Stokeford, near Ivybridge, the education authority had to provide eight temporary classrooms to house the overflow from the eight permanent ones already built.
In the whole of Devon, there are 1,456 temporary classrooms housing some 30 per cent. of the total school population. Seventy per cent. of primary and secondary schools have one or more temporary classrooms. [Interruption.] I cannot be blamed for the fact that the debate on this amendment came so late at night. Since I speak for a great number of shire county Members who have been kind enough to turn up tonight, it would be wrong of me to read the note that the Whip has just handed me, would it not, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Hon. Members are perfectly in order if they read from briefs handed to them.

Mr. Steen: That is just what I was doing, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I will not read notes handed to me by colleagues.
It is wrong to go on building more and more houses and allowing more and more people to move into an area without providing the infrastructure to allow them to enjoy the homes into which they have moved. It is wrong

to allow them to move into homes if the electricity supply is inadequate and the lights keep going out. It is even worse if the sewerage systems cannot cope. In South Milton, the sewage was backing up into the system, because the sewerage authority could not cope with the volume of houses that it was required to service. That is why infrastructure must keep pace with new development. We should not allow new houses to be built unless we provide adequate police cover, school places, water, electricity and gas.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deplorable state of affairs that he describes really exists in Tory South Hams?

Mr. Steen: It certainly exists in a village in South Hams; also in Dartmouth the sewerage system is so appalling that a total embargo has been imposed on new house building. The same has happened in Ivybridge, one of the fastest-growing towns in Devon. Things should never have reached that stage.
The local plans give no consideration to infrastructure. There is nothing to stop a developer from continuing to build houses, provided that the local plan allows him to do so. According to my planning officer, once the provision is in the local plan the pace of development cannot be slowed down, regardless of good planning practice.
The amendment merely proposes that, before housing developments proceed, the infrastructure must be either in place or readily available. Nothing is more harmful to constituents than to move into new housing developments in good Conservative shire counties and then to be without the basic facilities that they deserve.
I think that I have made my point. No one can doubt the importance of the amendments. I ask the Government to consider ways in which they might reassure Conservative Members who are concerned about the speed of housing development—as opposed to housing development itself—and the inadequacy of the population forecasts, which allow more houses to be built than are needed. Once the houses are built, the people who live in them will need an adequate infrastructure if they are to enjoy their new homes.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has raised two points: one concerns population forecasts, the other infrastructure. I note that many of my hon. Friends have appended their names to the amendments, and I understand the concern that is felt throughout the House about both subjects. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend and others, however, that the present system can cope with their anxieties.
My hon. Friend said that the Department massaged the figures. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that we were not engaged in the pursuit of truth; we have no interest in getting the forecasts wrong, and producing assessments that are higher or lower than what proves to be the case. We take population figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and convert them into household forecasts, using the best techniques available. Having engaged in broad consultation, we then convert those into indications, rather than targets, for the purposes of the structure plan.
My hon. Friend suggested that the forecasts were handed down like tablets of stone. That is not true; they are an indication, which is passed down to local authorities. The authorities are entitled to look at local


factors—such as information about household formation—and, having taken those factors into account, to tell the Department that its figure is too high or too low. It simply is not true to say that we impose rigid targets on authorities, defying any evidence that they may have about local circumstances. That would be bad planning, bad politics and bad economics. We have advised the local planning authorities to take account of population projections and other forecasts, apart from our own, when they draw up their structure plans. There is an important degree of flexibility in the system, and there is no question of my Department's imposing unrealistic targets.
Of course the Government have the responsibility to make sure that, when we plan ahead, the sum total of provision made in the various structure plans bears some resemblance to the population growth and household growth. It would be irresponsible of an Administration not to do that, but we do it in a flexible and responsive way, not in the rather dictatorial way that my hon. Friend erroneously implied.
10.45 pm
I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks on infrastructure. It is certainly the case that inadequate infrastructure is a material consideration that can be used for turning down planning permission for a new development. It would be wrong to permit a new development when there was no chance of, for example, a necessary new road being completed when the development became ready for occupation. The whole point of planning is that the infrastructure and the development move within the same timescale. If my hon. Friend looks at the environment White Paper, he will see that the object of the planning system is
to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest, and to ensure that service facilities such as roads, schools and sewers are built where they are needed.
Planning policy guidance note No. 12 deals with my hon. Friend's anxiety. It says:
Phasing of development over the period of one plan may be justified by considerations relating to infrastructure or the adequacy of other services, which may indicate that a particular area cannot be released for development until a particular stage in the plan period.
My hon. Friend asked me to reflect again on what he has said to see whether we can give fresh guidance. We are looking at planning policy guidance note No. 3, and I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. I shall see whether guidance needs strengthening.

Mr. Steen: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend says, except that there are 1,456 temporary classrooms, housing some 30 per cent. of Devon's school population, and that is caused solely by the housing development outstripping resources for the infrastructure.

Sir George Young: I have explained that if a local authority got a planning application for a housing estate and was not satisfied that there would be a school to cope with the children, that would be a material consideration and it could use that as an argument for turning down the planning application for the houses. The system allows a response to my hon. Friend's point.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: What happens when a planning application is granted, and the developers

undertake to put in the infrastructure, but then they fail to do so, and houses are built without any of the infrastructure that was supposed to go with them?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the local authority has powers to attach conditions to the granting of planning consent. It can insist on a time scale—for example, that a road is provided first. If the conditions are broken, that invalidates planning consent. Local authority planning departments have the powers that they need to grapple with the issues that my hon. Friends have outlined. We do not need the amendments, because the system already gives planning authorities the capacity to cope.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend's Department on a specific point—the responsibility of water suppliers to provide the necessary water for new developments. There seems to be some misunderstanding between local authorities and water suppliers as to the responsibility of the latter to warn local authorities that they should put a stop to further development because the water sources are not sufficient to meet the requirements. I would appreciate some clarification on that point.

Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's point. When the local authority produces a development plan looking forward for five years, and its estimates of household formation, the water authority is involved in the debate. It can be consulted and asked whether it is within its capacity to meet the infrastructure requirements. The bodies responsible for infrastructure provision can then plan on the basis of a clear picture of the future shape of the community's future. That is an important part of the preparation of the development plan.
When it comes to an individual planning application, the adequacy of the infrastructure is a material consideration in deciding whether permission can be granted. If the water authority has not made the infrastructure available, the local authority can use that as a reason for turning down the application. One hopes, however, that if the planning system and the planning consultation has worked, the water authority will have advance notice of the local authority's plans and the provision that will be necessary.
If at the end of the day the water authority cannot make the structure available, the local authority can claim that as a material consideration in not wanting to overload the system and in deciding not to approve the application. However, under the Water Act 1989 water suppliers have a clear duty to supply water for domestic purposes.

Sir Charles Morrison: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the present situation is totally different from that which has obtained for the past 15 to 20 years? My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is considerable concern throughout a good proportion of the south of England about there being too much water extraction, and about the disadvantage to the environment generally and to rivers in particular. Is my hon. Friend saying that, as a result of the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority or the water companies themselves will be able to stop further development because sufficient water is not available?

Sir George Young: That decision would be not for the water authority but for the planning authority, which could certainly take that view. If it were not satisfied that


the infrastructure was available, it could refuse a planning application for a development. The failure of the water authority to provide the necessary infrastructure would be a material consideration and one that the authority could use.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked whether we are changing the system. The Bill makes substantial changes. We are moving towards a system that is much more plan-led. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all the authorities involved in the provision of services march together at the same pace, in accordance with a plan to which they all contributed.
We want to move away from having lots of appeals, brought about because no one is clear what is the designation in particular parts of the country. We want up-to-date plans that cover the whole country, so that we can move with confidence to a new system that involves fewer appeals and references to my Department—and that has the confidence of local people, given that they will have been involved in the preparation of the plans. I am not sure that I can go further in meeting the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, but I repeat that his amendments are not necessary because there is flexibility within the system to cope with the concerns that he expressed.

Mr. Steen: With the permission of the House, it is not as my hon. Friend the Minister says—it just does not work like that. However, I am bound to accept my hon. Friend's reassurance that there will be a new dawn and new vision in planning—and, in view of his remarks, it would be wrong not to give him the beneft of the doubt. There is no point to dividing the House at this time of night, but I am far from satisfied that the process my hon. Friend the Minister described operates in practice. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 104, line 38, at end insert—
'(4A) Before prescribing any guidance or information under subsection (4) concerning aggregate demand forecasts the Secretary of State shall undertake public consultations with representatives of—

(a) persons carrying out mining operations;
(b) persons using the product of mining operations;
(c) owners of interests in land containing aggregates;
(d) mineral planning authorities;
(e) environmental and conservation interests; and
(f) local interests.'.

This amendment was prompted by the publication on 7 May by the Council for the Protection of Rural England of "Determined to Dig"—a study by John Adams of University college, London, which focused on the quality of aggregate demand forecasts. The study clearly showed that there has been little correlation over the years between forecasted demand and actual demand. Despite the poor quality of forecasting—whether it has resulted in overestimates or in underestimates—there is still plenty of aggregate material.
The importance of "Determined to Dig" is that it focuses on the fact that, in considering local quarrying plans and in examining applications by quarry companies to extend their sites and for new permissions to quarry, decisions are based largely on estimates of aggregate demand. All too often, mineral planning authorities have

to grant permissions to quarry simply because a certain demand forecast has to be met. They have to authorise the extension of quarrying, often into sensitive areas of landscape and sites of special scientific interest, because the demand forecast states that a certain quarrying capacity is needed. Applications have had to be approved willy-nilly with the result that, across the country, many important landscapes have been destroyed.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. We realise that an attempt has to be made to forecast demand, and we want the forecasters to carry on with their work. We hope, however, that that work can be improved, and that in future there will be a better correlation between forecast demand and actual demand. But before the final estimates—the estimates on the basis of which the mineral planning authorities will work—are produced, we want widespread consultation throughout the industry and among all those who can fairly be considered to have a concern. The relevant bodies are listed in the amendment.
We hope not only that there will be a discussion of the way in which the estimates are arrived at—with a broader group of people involved, to try to improve them—but that other sources of aggregate will be examined. They could include recycling the aggregate or using secondary aggregates. We should concentrate on other ways of achieving aggregate supplies—or supplies or alternatives to aggregate—so that we can reduce the amount of quarrying because there is no doubt that in many parts of the country scandalous sins are being committed against our beautiful country which we should not be prepared to accept.
I hope that the Government will look on the amendment with a kindly eye and that they will be prepared to accept it. It would do nothing to stop the forecasters making their forecasts. It would merely subject the process to public consultation and scrutiny before the final figures were etched on tablets of stone—if that is the right phrase, given that we are talking about quarrying. There should certainly be consultation and scrutiny before the estimates are used as the main guidelines by the mineral planning authorities in considering applications to extend quarrying.
I hope that it will be accepted that this is a way to make a useful contribution to the debate about forecasting, so that we can minimise the damage to our countryside. I can think of an example in my constituency near the village of St. Bride's Major, where the mineral planning authority is undertaking a local plan exercise, part of which will involve accepting the destruction of a part of a site of special scientific interest. That is not acceptable and the sooner we improve our consultation processes the better it will be for our countryside.

11 pm

Mr. George Walden: I do not know whether the Government will look upon the amendment with a kindly heart, but it strikes a chord with me, as I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate on 9 May. However, with respect, there is one deficiency in the amendment, because it does not seem to be very specific about obliging anyone to consult those concerned with producing alternatives to aggregates.
In that connection, after my debate I received a number of letters from people who are willing to consult. One letter was from Boral Lytag—Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd.—which


points out that, although it is involved with the use of ash aggregate as an alternative, it is not represented at aggregate working party meetings. Another letter was from CRA Services Ltd., which has developed a process in Australia known as "neutralysis" which
converts municipal waste into an aggregate by high temperature incineration".
I am in no position to judge the activities of those firms or whether those processes are better than what is happening at present; I mention them simply because I have a feeling that there are alternative sources out there which are not being sufficiently exploited.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I realise that this might be stretching the point a little, but it could be said that such companies had a conservation interest in aggregates, which is mentioned in para (e) of the amendment, but I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Walden: I accept that argument, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts mine.
Secondly, I understand from the Government's response to my Adjournment debate that their mind is by no means closed on the subject. I also understand that the forecasts for aggregates that they produce are for debate and are not written on tablets of stone—or whatever tonight's cliché is.
I am glad that the Government have moved on interim development orders, as I have a particularly nasty case of that in my constituency in Ivinghoe Aston, where a chalk quarry is allowed to operate right up to the fence of a property, which would never be allowed to happen nowadays.
I like to believe—I hope that the Minister will confirm my belief—that the Government are open-minded about this question. However, I should also like the Government to make it clear to county councils, which have to make decisions in the meantime, that they should not be over-impressed by the aggregate forecasts, that they should go slow on any doubtful cases—I have in mind the case of Mursley in my constituency, where the county council has an interest—and that they should not rush into decisions in a fast-evolving situation.
I hope that the Minister will buoy my faith in the Government's open-mindedness on this question.

Mr. Yeo: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that the Government look with a kindly eye at most subjects. The objective of the amendment is one of those subjects. The Government published new long-term forecasts of national demand for primary aggregates on 7 May, but I cannot stress too strongly that those forecasts are not Government plans, or production targets that have to be met. They are simply forecasts. One of the purposes of publishing them is to promote the debate that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I wish to see. The new forecasts suggest that there will be continued steady growth in demand over the next 20 years, although the rate of growth may be below that experienced in the last 40 years. It is essential that the environmental consequences of that demand are examined very carefully.
The Government are undertaking a review of the present guidance on the provision of aggregates—MPG6—to ensure that it is up to date. The demand forecasts are

the first step in this review and provide a useful starting point in the consideration of the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates.
We fully recognise that there is increasing public concern about the mining of aggregates. We have also made it clear, both during the passage of the Bill and elsewhere, that we are determined to achieve higher operating standards in the minerals industry. The Bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to achieve precisely that.
We also want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials that contribute, at the moment, less than 10 per cent. to present demands. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a very important point about that. I fully share his concern about the importance of finding alternatives. We are determined to improve that figure. Therefore, we have asked the industry to show how that increase can be achieved. I hope that our own research, which we shall publish later this summer, will also provide some pointers as to how that increase can be achieved.

Sir Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to say which he considers more important—aggregates or the environment? He knows that in my constituency there is an example of the environment having been completely spoilt by digging for aggregates.

Mr. Yeo: It is impossible to quantify precisely which is the more important. We want to achieve the conditions that make possible sustained economic growth. We see no inconsistency between that objective and the objective of substantially raising the environmental standards adopted by the aggregates industry and other industries. We are encouraged by the co-operation that many of those engaged in the industry are providing. They also see the need for higher environmental standards. A major part of our effort is directed at achieving an increase in the use of alternative materials.
In addition to the research to which I have already referred, other research that we have in hand is looking at the potential offered by marine sand and gravel and coastal super-quarries, one of which I shall be visiting later this week. We are also examining whether at present there is over-specification in the use of aggregates, which causes the wasteful or excessive use of a valuable natural resource.
The publication of the forecasts that the consultants have prepared has been undertaken now to ensure an open and public debate about the forecasts and the environmental implications of the predicted growth in demand. We want that debate to be as wide as possible. We have not formed any final views about the forecasts. For that reason, we want the views of industry, the mineral planning authorities, the environmental and conservation bodies and the public at large about the forecasts at this stage. That will enable us to give careful consideration to all the comments that we receive when preparing the new draft guidelines to replace MPG6.
The draft guidelines will include the Secretary of State's views on the long-term forecast of demand for aggregates. They will therefore be the subject of extensive formal public consultation with a wide range of interests. The


views expressed as a result of that exercise will then be taken into account before any revised guidelines are issued.
I hope, therefore, that it is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that arrangements already exist for an extraordinary wide-ranging public consultation exercise about the aggregate demand forecasts and the draft guidelines. It is precisely in order to promote that debate that we published the forecasts. We therefore do not feel that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation arrangements for ensuring a proper public debate. We are unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government suggest that there will be an opportunity for widespread consultation. I look forward to that, and especially to the development of the recycling process to enable us to reduce the nation's need for quarrying, which often destroys much of our beautiful landscape. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 107, line 37, leave out '288' and insert '287'.

No. 118, in page 109, line 14, after 'section', insert'"repeal and" is omitted and'.

No. 119, in page 109, line 40, at end insert
`and for "38" there is substituted "39".'.—[Mr. Yeo.]

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 111, line 38, after 'authority' insert
`, except that in National Parks, other than those which exercise the functions of county planning authorities under Schedule 17 of the Local Government Act 1972, they shall be exercisable jointly by the National Park Authority and the county planning authority;'.
We debated this issue in Committee so I shall not detain the House too long, but I wish to emphasise the fact that the amendment is a key recommendation of the report by the national parks review panel, "Fit for the Future", which was published in March this year. We realise that many of the report's recommendations will be implemented as part of a national parks Act. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to implement one of the review panel's key recommendations immediately, which is that national parks authorities should become structure planning authorities jointly with the relevant county council.
I give art example of one of the difficulties that can occur in national parks. All national parks are outstanding and it is invidious to classify them in any order, but surely the Pembrokeshire coast must rate as one of the most beautiful. However, Dyfed's structure plan contains no special provision for different treatment to reflect the special status of the Pembrokeshire coast national park. For example, settlement policies do not refer specifically to the existence of the park, and county-wide policies for tourism also ignore the special problems of the national park. There is therefore an urgent need for the amendment to be accepted.
The national parks review panel said:
We are firmly convinced that national park authorities must play a fuller statutory role in the new structure plan process … we therefore propose that there should be a single structure plan for each county, prepared by the county council jointly with the national park authority, thus enabling the national park authority both to influence county-wide policies which may affect the park, and to be responsible for drafting specific policies for the park.

That proposal has been endorsed by the Countryside Commission.
I hope that in the five weeks that the Government have had to consider the Bill since we last debated it they have already worked out some improvements and concessions on environmental issues. I hope that they will not find the amendment too difficult to swallow, and it would be most appropriate for them to accept it.

Sir George Young: I have, of course, used the entire five weeks to think intensively about this amendment, which we discussed in Committee. I have the same difficulties today as I had then with the concept of joint responsibility for structure plans. It would be a novel requirement that two authorities had to agree on a joint structure plan. What would happen if one authority could not agree with the other? There would inevitably be delay and there would have to be some machinery for resolving that. This is not a recipe for success.
11.15 pm
The National Parks Authority has a keen interest in the structure plan. We intend to provide in regulations—there will be statutory cover—for the National Parks Authority to be consulted on the county's structure plan proposals before they are placed on deposit. That will ensure the close involvement of the parks authority in the preparation of structure plan proposals for its area and it will be free to raise any outstanding issues of concern once the proposals are placed on deposit for objection. It is likely that they would then need to be discussed at the examination in public under independent chairmanship.
We would then reach the solution wanted by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and ensure that the two authorities were involved in what emerged, but we would not impose an obligation to agree. I see problems in that since one would have to resolve a dispute if the authorities were unable to agree on the structure plan.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Bridgend will not press the amendment. As I said in Committee, it is premature to come to a decision on some of the recommendations. I hope that the substance of the hon. Gentleman's comments can be achieved by the mechanism that I have outlined.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Given the regulations that the Minister has said will be introduced to involve the National Parks Authority more fully in the planning process, we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it seems that the Minister is rejecting one of the principal recommendations of the review body. I hope that at a later stage we shall look at the effectiveness of the Minister's proposals. In the next few years the Government could, and probably will, be different. We can look at it again then.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Schedule 5

PLANNING COMPENSATION REPEALS:

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 122, line 29, leave out paragraph 11.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 10

PLANNING COMPENSATION REPEALS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS—SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 149, line 37, leave out paragraph 8.

No. 194, in page 150, line 7, leave out 'VII' and insert

No. 177, in page 150, line 23, leave out 'section', and insert 'Ace. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

PLANNING IN ENGLAND AND WALES: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 126, line 22, at end insert—

'Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)

3A. In section 33(4) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 for the words from "section 63(2)(b)" to the end there is substituted "section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".'

No. 32, in page 127, line 19, leave out '56(3)' and insert '56, in subsection (3)'.

No. 33, in page 127, line 19, at end insert—
'(2) In subsection (4) of that section after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'

No. 34, in page 127, line 20, leave out
`In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or'
and insert 'Section 63'.

No. 21, in page 127, line 21, at end insert—

'11A. In section 69—
(a) in subsection (1) "made to that authority", and'.
No. 38, in page 127, line 26; at end insert—
`13A. — (1) After section 73 there is inserted—

Planning permission for development already carried out.

73A. — (1) On an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;
(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or
(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or
(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'

No. 39, in page 127, line 28, leave out
`and (2)" there is substituted "70"'
and insert
`and (2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
No. 40, in page 127, line 32, leave out
`71(2)" there is substituted "70"'
and insert
'71(2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A"'.

No. 41, in page 127, line 35, at end insert—

'16A. In section 91(4)(b), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "granted for development carried out before the grant of that permission".

16B. — (1) In section 102, for subsections (4) and (5) there is substituted—

"(4) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under section 103.
(5) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or
(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'

No. 46, in page 128, line 34, at end insert—
'(2) For section 177(3) there is substituted—
(3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part III.
(3) In section 177(5) for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'

No. 47, in page 129, line 2, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 20 and insert
'Where, after the service of—

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or
(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission."'

No. 48, in page 129, line 30, leave out '181(5)(b)' and insert
`181—

(a) in subsections (1)(a), (4)(b) and (5)(b) for "demolition", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removal";
(b) in subsections (3), (4) and (5) for "demolished", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removed"; and
(c) in subsection (5)(b)'

No. 49, in page 129, line 41, after 'relevant activity"' insert—
'(aa) in subsection (1)(c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted;'

No. 121, in page 129, line 47, at beginning insert 'and'.

No. 51, in page 132, line 27, at end insert—

`(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings or works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and tilling in of trenches"; and
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—

"building operations" has the meaning given by section 55;" '

No. 52, in page 132, line 30, leave out 'and'

No. 53, in page 132, line 33, at end insert
`and
(e) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'

No. 31, in page 134, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'may' in line 6 and insert
'a planning obligation under section 106 or 299A'

No. 56, in page 134, line 31, leave out
'"64" there is substituted "63"'
and insert
`to 64" there is substituted "and 62"'

No. 57, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
`(bb) after the entry relating to section 72(1) to (4) there is inserted—
Section 73A.'

No. 58, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—


'53A. For section 67(8) of that Act there is substituted—
(8) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act.
53B. For section 73(2) of that Act there is substituted—
(2) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."'—[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 11

PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 155, line 14, at end insert—

'2A. In subsection (3)(a) of section 5 (preparation of structure plans), after "measures for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".
2B. In subsection (3)(a) of section 9 (preparation of local plans), after "fit for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".'.

No. 178, in page 155, line 29, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
No. 179, in page 155, leave out line 34 and insert—
'4. In section 23 (publication of notices of applications— (a) in subsection (1)'.
No. 180, in page 155, line 36, at end insert—
'(b) at the end there is inserted—
(4) A planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied.
(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any time within the period of two years following the commission of the offence.".'.
No. 181, in page 155, line 44, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert
'such regulations or the order'.
No. 81, in page 156, line 3, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
'6. For section 29 there is substituted—

Planning permission for development already carried out.

29. — (1) On an application made to a planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;
(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or
(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or
(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

No. 182, in page 156, line 11, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert
'such regulations or the order'.
No. 183, in page 156, line 13, leave out `by regulations or an order' and insert
`by such regulations or the order'.
No. 82, in page 156, line 17, leave out 'and 28A"' and insert 28A and 29"'.
No. 83, in page 156, line 27, after '(3A)";' insert—

'(iia) for "and 27A" there is substituted ", 27A and 29"'
No. 184, in page 156, line 37, leave out 'any' in both places where it occurs.
No. 84, in page 156, line 40, at end insert—
'10A. In subsection (3)(c) of section 38 (limit of duration of planning permission), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "for any development carried out before the grant of planning permission".'.
No. 85, in page 156, line 42, at end insert—
'11A. In subsection (2) of section 40 (provision as to date when development begun), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'
'11B. In section 49 (orders requiring discontinuance of use etc.), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
(3) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under this section.

(3A) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or
(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

No. 185, in page 157, line 1, leave out paragraph 14.

No. 86, in page 157, line 6, after '(a)' insert
'in subsection (2B)(d) for the words from "being" to "situated" there is substituted "to such persons as may be specified";
(b)'.

No. 87, in page 157, line 46, at end insert—
`(ca) in subsection (6), for the words from "and any planning permission" to the end there is substituted

"(6A) The planning permission which may be granted under subsection (5) of this section is any planning permission which might be granted on an application under Part III of this Act.
(6B) Where the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation under subsection (5) of this section, he may substitute for it any other condition or limitation.".

(cb) in subsection (7), for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.

No. 88, in page 158, line 12, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—

'20. In section 89 (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "demolition" there is substituted "removal"; and
(b) in subsections (3) and (4) for "demolished" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "removed".

20A. For section 89A there is substituted—

Effect of planning permission, etc., on enforcement or breach of condition notice.

89A.—(1) Where, after the service of—

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or
(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission.
(2) Where, after a breach of condition notice has been served, any condition to which the notice relates is discharged, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires any person to secure compliance with the condition in question.
(3) The fact that an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice has wholly or partly ceased to have effect by


virtue of this section shall not affect the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a previous failure to comply, or secure compliance, with the notice.".'.

No. 89, in page 159, line 1, after 'section' insert '—(a)'.
No. 90, in page 159, line 8, at end insert
`; and
(b) in paragraph (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted.'.
No. 91, in page 159, line 27, after '(1)(c)' insert—
`—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and (ii)'.
No. 196, in page 159, line 31, at end insert—
'(1) in subsection (6) after "other than section" where it first occurs there is inserted "163 or".'.
No. 92, in page 159, line 42, at end insert—

`(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings and 'works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches";
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—"building operations" has the meaning given by section 19 of this Act;'.

No. 93, in page 160, line 1, leave out 'and'.
No. 94, in page 160, line 4, at end insert
`and
(d) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
No. 195, in page 161, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'the following' in line 13 and insert

'40. In subsection (3) of section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications), for the words "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under subsection (7) of section 85 (appeals against enforcement notice) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and
(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".

40A. In Part I of Schedule 30 to that Act.'.

No. 187, in page 161, line 14, leave out 'and 87AA' and insert ', 87AA and 260A'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 61

HOME LOSS PAYMENTS

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 66, line 6, at the beginning insert—

'—.(1) Section 29(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (right to a home loss payment) shall be amended as follows:

(a) in subsection 29(1)(c) the words "repair of or" shall be inserted immediately before the word "improvement"
(b) in subsection 29(1)(d) the words "repair of or" shall be inserted immediately before the word "improvement"
(c) in subsection 29(1)(e) after the words "Housing Act 1986" shall be inserted the words "or in the case of an assured tenant of a housing association the making of a possession order under Ground 6 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988"
(d) after subsection 29(1)(e) there shall be added.

"(f) the making by a magistrates' court of an order under section 82(3) Environmental Protection Act 1990 or section 77 of the Building Act 1984 where the effect of such order will be permanently or indefinitely to prevent the occupier from continuing in occupation"

(e) after sub-paragraph (v) shall be added the words

"(iv) where paragraph (f) applies, the owner of the property or such other person as the magistrates' court may in its discretion direct.".'.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 196 has been missed.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Amendment No. 196 appears on page 1148 of the amendment paper, which we have not yet reached. We are now dealing with Opposition amendment No. 192. Is the Minister happy?

Sir George Young: We do not mind when we reach amendment No. 196, as long as it is reached at some point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be called formally when I reach page 1148. It has already been taken with Government amendment No. 194. We are now dealing with Opposition amendment No. 192.

Mr. Soley: The first amendment on page 1148 is also an Opposition amendment.
I remind the Minister that in Committee we had a significant series of debates on home loss payments for tenants. We argued that tenants were not getting the credit that they deserved for the effort and money that they put into their homes. This is not a repetition of that argument but an attempt to deal with some of the groups who should be covered but are not presently covered. I hope that in my short contribution I can persuade the Minister to act.
The amendment is supported by the Law Society, Shelter, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Institute of Housing, so it has wide housing support. It deals with home loss payments. These are paid to tenants and owners when they are permanently displaced from their homes. The amendment extends eligibility to certain groups of permanently displaced persons not at present covered.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment extend entitlement to council and housing association tenants who lose their homes due to the need for extensive repair work. At present, such tenants receive a home loss payment if the work carried out can be described as "improvement". In practice, this leads to an absurd and unnecessary need to categorise extensive renovation work as either "repair" or "improvement", as only in the latter case is payment made. The amendment removes this problem by extending entitlement. It does not apply to tenants able to return to their homes after repair work. It applies only to those required to move permanently.
Paragraph (c) extends entitlement to assured tenants of housing associations required to move out permanently because of extensive work to their homes. At present, secure tenants of such associations have the right to a payment. The amendment maintains fairness between the two types of association tenant. The Government have suggested that it is unnecessary as associations can be encouraged to make payments in such cases by the Housing Corporation. Experience suggests that associations are already pressed for funds and will make payments only when legally necessary. There is a strong case for bringing them into line.
Paragraph (d) deals with the situation of a tenant who has a home declared unfit or dangerous by a magistrates court. Often the tenant will have to move out for only a short period while remedial work is undertaken. However, sometimes the only way to deal with an extensive problem is to demolish the property or to prohibit occupation


indefinitely. The amendment extends entitlement to tenants permanently displaced by such orders. Paragraph (e) simply identifies the owner of the property as the person liable to make the payment unless the magistrates court that issued the order directs otherwise.
As I said, the amendment does not repeat the debate in Committee in which we discussed the amount of money paid in home loss. The amendment attempts to tidy up some of the anomalies and I hope that I can carry the Minister and the Government with me in regard to it.

Sir George Young: This amendment would involve an extension of the circumstances in which there is an entitlement to a home loss payment.
The first two parts of the amendment would bring in cases where the occupant is displaced in certain circumstances to allow repairs to be made to his home. Home loss payments are rightly available in cases where a person is displaced permanently from his home. The legislation already provides for payments to be made where there is such a displacement because of an authority's need to carry out improvements. However, I would expect that where repairs—as distinct from improvements—are concerned, there is a stronger likelihood that the occupant will return to his home once the work has been carried out. Therefore, I see no reason to accept that any change is required.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) went on to propose an extension of home loss payments to assured tenants of housing associations which require possession of the tenant's home on ground 6 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The hon. Gentleman will, I suspect, be aware that I have very recently written to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) explaining that, having looked again at the relevant legislation, we have concluded that all housing association tenants—including those with assured tenancies—are in fact already eligible for home loss payments under the existing provisions where they are displaced in qualifying circumstances. No further provision is therefore necessary, but we have asked the Housing Corporation to make sure that the tenants' guarantee will make the position absolutely clear.
Finally, the amendment seeks to extend entitlement to home loss payments to people displaced as a result of certain proceedings taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Building Act 1984, where that displacement is permanent or indefinite.
Those statutory procedures are concerned with properties that are unfit for human habitation or structurally unsound and I accept that, where action is taken under one or the other of them, the effect will often—although not invariably—be to displace people who are living in them. Whether that displacement turns out to be permanent will depend very much on the circumstances of the case. In some instances, it may be permanent, in others not.
However, the key point is that it will not necessarily be clear at the time when the statutory action is initiated whether any displacements which may be required will be permanent or not. So I doubt that the distinction enshrined in this proposal would be workable. Also, it runs counter to the general principles of the home loss payment scheme by requiring a third party—the owner or another

person as directed by the court—to be responsible for making the home loss payment, whereas under the scheme it is invariably the body responsible for the displacement which pays. On balance, therefore, I do not believe it would be right to bring this type of case within the home loss payment scheme.
Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Mr. Soley: I invite the Minister to ask his civil servants to read the Official Report tomorrow and, if necessary, to contact the Law Society, the Institute of Housing and Shelter. He will find that there is a good case for bringing those into line, and this is the appropriate time to do that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Iain Mills: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 67, line 7 after 'different', insert `percentage and'.
This is a small amendment about compensation. The Government have seen fit to introduce enabling powers in clause 61(3)(5) and (6) under which the Secretary of State can change the maximum and minimum amounts for compensation by statutory instrument.
Why should the Secretary of State have the power to change the maximum and minimum compensation for home loss, but not the percentage? That is why I have described the amendment as very small. That must lead to the view that compensation levels need entail no addition in overall terms to the cost of road developments. That could increase the speed of introducing the developments.
If there is a preparedness to take the powers to deal with maximum and minimum, why is there not a readiness to take powers to increase the percentage? If the taking of such powers would reduce the many years that ensue before road developments are completed because of the consequences of the public inquiry system, would it not be a good idea to take them? I am not saying that a percentage should be specified, but if it were found that a higher percentage would ease a certain scheme, whether in my constituency or elsewhere, or facilitate the introduction of new motorways, such as the M42 and the M6 in my constituency, that would surely be an important consideration.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) for the concise and persuasive way in which he moved the amendment, which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to vary by regulations the percentage that is to be used in calculating the level of home loss payment for owner-occupiers. My hon. Friend knows, as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, that the level of payment is set at 10 per cent. of the market value of the dwelling, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. There is provision for my right hon. Friend to vary the minimum and maximum amounts by regulation, but not the specified percentage.
As we have made clear, the object of the home loss payment is to compensate for the distress and upheaval that people will usually suffer when forced to move home at a time not of their own choosing. Setting the level of that compensation can only be a matter of judgment as to what is fair, to those who are displaced and to the central and


local taxpayers who are called upon to foot the bill. It is not an easy judgment to make, but we are generally satisfied that the approach that we propose to adopt strikes the right balance.
When we have specified the upper and lower limits for the flat-rate payments for claimants in the Bill, we have made provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative amounts by regulation. That is common practice in primary legislation, and a prudent thing to do. A specified percentage is a different matter.
We believe that the proposed system represents a sound basis on which to calculate the level of home loss payment for owner-occupiers, and we see no reason to provide for it to be changed. Even if we were to decide that an alternative percentage were needed, I would regard that as a change so fundamental that it should be introduced by way of primary legislation rather than by regulations.
My hon. Friend touched on an argument that we heard much of in Committee, which is that, if the percentage were higher, claimants would have an incentive to move more quickly from their homes, and public development projects might move faster. There is no hard evidence that that would happen if higher levels of compensation were payable, not least because many objectors are not those who are directly affected and who receive compensation. I am not persuaded that higher rates of compensation would automatically have the effect that my hon. Friend desires.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that one factor is varied by regulation and the other by primary legislation. I hope also that he will decide, on reflection, not to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Automobile Association strongly supports the amendment and has advocated its acceptance. Percentages are important, especially in areas where values are low enough not to be caught by the arrangements that are set out in the Bill. Someone in a low-value house might not be attracted to vacate it, but he could be if a higher percentage provision could be implemented. I recognise, of course, that any such provision could work both ways. We are anxious to see movement facilitated to prevent schemes from being held up when it is unnecessary. Of course, for an individual or family to move from a house is just as difficult and inconvenient whether the house is worth £5,000, £200,000 or any other amount.

Mr. Mills: I am tempted, because I am not quite satisfied with what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, to use the terms of Opposition Back-Benchers and say that I wish to call a Division. However, I am mindful of the time, the discussions that we had in Committee, and the Minister's obvious understanding of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 193. in page 69, line 4, at the beginning insert—
'(9) In section 37(3) of that Act subsection (c) shall be omitted.'.
Neither Back-Bench nor Front-Bench Members seem to be having any luck with the Minister tonight, but I intend to try again. I hope to persuade the Minister on compensation for tenants. The purpose of amendment No. 193 is to remove the effect of a decision of the High Court in Crown v. the London borough of Islington ex parte Knight, in which section 37(3)(c) of the Land

Compensation Act 1973 was applied so that Mrs. Knight was denied a disturbance payment because the land from which she was displaced had been acquired by the council by agreement in 1930, many years before she became a tenant in 1975.
The first reason for the amendment is that many tenants are affected by the decision in view of the period over which authorities have acquired land. Secondly, paragraph (c) of section 37(3) is not compatible with paragraphs (a) and (b). Those paragraphs deal with denying payment to those who were not in occupation before the compulsory purchase process commenced. That is, they took up occupation when their displacement was imminent and could be deemed to have been aware of that. That was not so in Mrs. Knight's case. Her displacement did not become a possibility until six years after she took up occupation.
The amendment is compatible with parliamentary intention as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b). Unless the amendment is accepted, tenants could be denied disturbance payments when the land was acquired many years before the question of displacement arose. There seems to be a contradiction in the law. The amendment is an attempt to put that right, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Yeo: The suggestion is that this proviso as to lawful occupation is unfair, in that it precludes a disturbance payment in the case of someone who may have lived in a property for a long time but cannot satisfy the test of having been in occupation when the authority's original acquisition took place.
The decision in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not have a direct bearing on the concern at which the amendment is directed. I am advised that the decision turned on a technicality unrelated to the question of when the claimant entered into occupation of the dwelling. As I promised when the matter was raised in Committee, we have carefully considered whether there is a case for amending the existing provision, but the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed, although perhaps not surprised, to know that we have concluded that there is not a case.
The purpose of the restriction as to lawful occupation is to ensure that a disturbance payment is made to an occupant who stays on in a property after acquisition and is subsequently displaced, but not to someone who moves in after acquisition knowing full well that in due course he will have to move. That is perfectly reasonable. Many housing authorities and housing associations make a point of allowing people to occupy, on a short-term basis, accommodation which has been acquired with a view to redevelopment.
Having said that, where a claimant does not qualify for a disturbance payment as of right, the authority may none the less consider that there is good reason to pay expenses. Authorities are empowered under section 37(5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to make a discretionary payment. That ought to be sufficient generally to ensure that hardship is avoided in deserving cases.
We do not have evidence that a large number of people are being denied payment in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Against that background, I am afraid that it seems to us that the law is best left as it stands. I cannot recommend the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 13

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LAND COMPENSATION

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 172, line 33, after `management"' insert—

`(aa) in subsection (2) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that subsection there is inserted—

(2A) Notice under subsection (2) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'
No. 24, in page 172, line 39, after "land"' insert—

`(aa) in sub-paragraph (3) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

(3A) Notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'—[Mr. Yeo.]

Schedule 14

COMPENSATION WHERE PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTED AFTER ACQUISITION-SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 196, in page 184, line 28, leave out 'then', and insert `and'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 15

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LAND COMPENSATION IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 184, line 29, at end insert—
`2A. In paragraph 11 of that Schedule (purchase of open space)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to"; and
(b) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.".'.
No. 188, in page 188, line 11, at end insert—
(3) In subsection (4), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
(b) a right to occupy the dwelling-house—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 76

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 80, line 42, leave out `section' and insert
`sections (Home loss payments: Northern Ireland) and'. —[Sir George Young]

Schedule 17

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 194, line 28, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.
No. 36, in page 194, leave out from end of line 52 to end of line 2 on page 195 and insert `Section 63.'
No. 22, in page 195, line 3, at end insert—

`In section 69, in subsection (1) "made to that authority" and in subsection (3) "made to the authority".'
No. 50, in page 195, line 13, at end insert
`In section 186(1)(c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'

No. 15, in page 195, line 59, leave out 'and'.

No. 16, in page 195, line 61, after 'certificate"' insert `and "mineral compensation modifications"'.

No. 55, in page 196, line 4, after '71)"', insert
`in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end'
No. 17, in page 196, line 4, after '71)"', insert
`the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations"'.
No. 18, in page 196, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
`Schedule 11'.

No. 60, in page 197, line 15, leave out 'and 35(1)(b)' and insert `35(1)(b) and 38'

No. 37, in page 197, column 3, leave out line 37.

No. 123, in page 198, line 39, column 3, at beginning insert 'in'.

No. 189, in page 200, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
'In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.'.

No. 190, in page 200 leave out line 28.

No. 98, in page 201, line 6, at end insert—
`Section 153A.'.

No. 99, in page 201, line 20, at end insert—
`Section 159A.
Section 159B.'.

No. 100, in page 201, line 21, column 3, at end insert—
`In section 166(2)(c), the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.

No. 101, in page 201 leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
`Section 167B.
Section 167C.'.

No. 191, in page 201, line 42, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 251(1A), the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals".'.

No. 102, in page 201, line 58, column 3, after `certificate', insert—
`and'.

No. 103, in page 201, line 59, column 3, leave out 'and' and insert—


';in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end; and the definition of '.—[Sir George Young.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Sir George Young.]

Mr. Win Griffiths: A few words need to be said on Third Reading. The Opposition support the Bill as it ha .s been amended, but we still have grave reservations about clause 12 and the issue of unilateral undertakings, because there is, unfortunately, some scope there for innuendo and rumour when it comes to the undertakings being made.
However, our main criticism of the Bill really rests on the Government's commitment in "This Common Inheritance" to green themselves. Given the previous Secretary of State's commitment to using the planning system for the enhancement and protection of the environment, many people, both inside and outside the House, were surprised at the lack of virtually all greenery in the Bill.
It is only because of the doughty fight put up in another place by peers of all parties and by Members from both sides of the House that we have, thankfully and appreciatively, seen some major concessions by the Government on environmental issues.
Nevertheless, we have still failed to include in the Bill important measures for coastal zone planning or sustainable development or proper planning controls in agriculture and forestry. We recognise that the Government have not accepted those, but we appreciate that they moved in the right direction on all the important environmental considerations.
We are only sorry that they did not come forward in the first place in a constructive spirit with the proposals which now exist in the Bill. We need to underline the fact that it is only because of the efforts of people other than the Government that they are now there. However, we thank the Government for responding 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. along the path of the green way which is so desperately needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Mar Lodge

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that I speak with the good will of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), in whose constituency lies the exquisitely beautiful Mar Lodge estate. His friends on both sides of the House know that he would have wished to be here if he had not had an extremely important appointment.
In the expert company of Dick Balharry, senior warden of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, Dr. Adam Watson, a man who has given his life to the Cairngorms and works at the Institute of Terrestial Ecology, Banchory, and Dave Morris of the Ramblers Association, my wife and I had the good fortune to spend a day last month in the ancient Caledonian forest. Does anyone in Government dispute that the Mar Lodge estate is the key tract of land in the very heart of the Cairngorms?
The problem is encapsulated in a simple, if inexact, analogy. Translated into human terms, it is as if the remaining trees were all 85 to 90-year-old men. The next decade represents the very last chance of natural re-seeding for the ancient Caledonian forest. More deer than the land has ever carried before are now supported by winter feeding from those whose priority it is to ensure enough deer for stalking purposes.
In the old days, those who took stalking estates took them for a season, or perhaps for a couple of months. They were not unduly worried if they had blank days. Now, when people will pay thousands of pounds for periods of less than a week, they expect to have stags available each day. These circumstances combine to create a situation in which the young trees have no chance to grow. The crucial point is that if the Mar Lodge estate is to be subject to commercial considerations, we might as well say goodbye to the ancient Caledonian forest.
That would be a tragedy for Scotland. It would be a tragedy for the United Kingdom, which means that the Department of the Environment ought to be deeply involved. I insert the question whether it is true that there is no mechanism for transferring Department of he Environment funds to the Scottish Office. In particular, I would like to ask whether it is true that a special allocation of funds was made from the Department of the Environment to enable the NCC to buy the Creag Meagaidh estate from Fountain Forestry in 1985. As the Minister knows, I raised the issue of the transfer of funds with the Prime Minister and had a most useful conversation with his parliamentary private secretary about it. It concerns the Treasury, Downing street, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office.
The end of the Caledonian forest would also be a tragedy for Europe, since I understand that neither Norway nor Sweden has examples of ancient European forests as good as the southern Cairngorms, outside of nature reserves. The Caledonian forest is the only example in the EC countries of the boreal forest.
On 5 March 1980, when he was launching the world conservation strategy in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said:


My co-ordinating role over the whole field is one to which I attach major significance.
Incidentally, I do not quote the speech in a snide way—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said.
He continued:
For, to my mind, it is the individual decision, when aggregated with hundreds or even thousands of others which, at the end of the day actually matters and only a fraction of those individual decisions are taken in government".
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
That is the basis of my approach to environmental conservation. As Secretary of State for the Environment, I believe profoundly in the basis of the strategy that is being launched today—the maintenance of the earth's resources.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
In almost every decision the politician takes in the so-called 'environmental area' he has to balance a development need, with a clearly defined economic advantage, against a potential conservation loss, with perhaps no conceivable economic gain or even the imposition of a specific loss in terms of increased government expenditure.
What matters is that the politician consciously weighs up the various possible effects of development in taking his decision, and seeks a decision that is sound conservation, using our environmental resources as well as possible … Public bodies have to pay regard to nature conservation. And we give special protection to particularly important sites of interest of nature conservation or special scientific interest. As today's event underlines, we may need to consider decisions too from an international as well as a national standpoint ….As soon as circumstances permit, we should like to ratify the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage … As examples of that commitment, in the last 10 months we have sanctioned additional expenditure to allow the NCC to acquire unique wetlands at Cors Fochno and to buy the Parsonage Down estate of special scientific interest with its outstanding flora … I can promise a philosophical approach totally in line with the objectives of a sensible conservation policy, and I can promise too a personal commitment that starts from a simple premise: in any individual decision, the starting point will be to conserve what matters: those who have a contrary objective must bear the onus of proof.
I ask tonight: do the Government stand by what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1980, particularly his view of our international responsibilities? Page 12 of "The Way Ahead", published in July 1990, highlights the need for Scottish Natural Heritage
to purchase, own, lease, or manage land either alone or in partnership.
If Ministers are not prepared to apply such principles to Mar Lodge, where do they propose to apply them?
According to "The Way Ahead",
The proposed powers for SNH will give it strength and flexibility beyond that available to the present agencies".
Mar Lodge is a kind of litmus test of the new body. If the Government will not find moneys to purchase it for the nation, will they at least fund a consortium of voluntary bodies—such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund and the Chris Brasher Trust—on a pound-for-pound basis? I was a Doubting Thomas in regard to the changes; indeed, I wholly opposed them. As an unbeliever in the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council, however, I am entitled to say that Mar Lodge is a litmus test for those who insisted on destroying the NCC.
Finally, I ask the Minister some questions, of which I have given notice to his officials—as, indeed, I have in regard to every point that I have made in my speech, thinking it sensible to do so. First, what costs would be incurred by the nation if Mar Lodge were managed as a

private estate for nature conservation? It would involve the forgoing of profits, and compensation from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. Such a management agreement, involving a huge estate, has not been achieved anywhere else, despite all the work that the Standing Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 put into the concept. I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—who has done me the courtesy of being present at this late hour—will accept that.
Would the Government consider a compulsory purchase order for the estate on the basis of the Crown Commissioners' negotiations? If a national European and world living treasure is to be used as a bauble or toy for the mega-rich and hawked around the international market, should not the Government opt for a compulsory purchase order? After all, the Crown Commissioners have already set a value on the estate. In the event of there not being a compulsory purchase order, would Ministers consider buying Mar Lodge, or even using the compulsory purchase order to arrest possible purchase, and then to launch a public appeal for 50 per cent. of the purchase costs?
Those questions have been asked by a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who, for understandable reasons, was here until a moment ago but has left because he has to go to Scotland tonight. These questions also arouse the curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has done me the courtesy of coming in at this late hour, and I thank him for that.
There is a great deal more to be said on an issue that deeply concerns many people, not only in Scotland, but in Britain, but it is more important that the Minister has time to expound Government thinking. I hope that the House will forgive me a personal reflection. On three occasions, Mr. Speaker has given me an Adjournment debate on rain forest problems. I have also been lucky to raise the subject of the Amazon on four occasions during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate and have asked innumerable questions.
How on earth can any of us seek to tell developing countries what they should do about the guardianship of their rain forests unless we set an example in relation to our own forests, and in particular to Mar Lodge? I shall never forget sitting in the office of Cesar Fernando Mesquita, then the Minister for the north, in Brasilia, and having to begin my plea for the Amazon with the observation that I came from a country where we had allowed most of our old forest to be destroyed and that I was in no position to lecture him or anyone else in Brazil. Only with that confession, and in a spirit of humility, which contrasted with that of his previous visitor—the American Senator Gore—did I get a kindly hearing. If we fail to do the right thing by Mar Lodge, we had better shut up about trying to protect the world's rain forests. Britain's international credibility is at stake. I wonder whether the Government agree with that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on his success in raising these important matters. I know the area quite well as I stayed there some years ago, and a constitutent who was a stalker showed me around, from one end to the other, which was a fascinating experience.
I agree that the Cairngorms, which contain most of the highest peaks in Scotland, are probably the finest single example of the natural heritage of Scotland and are of considerable importance in international terms.
Remnants of the Caledonian forest which lie in and around the foothills of the Cairngorms are one of the most important features of the Cairngorms. These native pine woods are among the least modified woodland areas in Britain and represent an unbroken link with the natural forest that developed following the recession of the last glaciation some 8,000 years ago. They are an irreplaceable habitat for many rare animal and plant species. The importance of the Caledonian forest to Scotland, Britain and indeed the world is not in question and well deserves discussion tonight on the Floor of the House.
Preserving the health of the Caledonian pine forest is a matter of considerable concern to the Government and is a priority of both the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Forestry Commission. Those present who have seen Scotland's pine woods in their native setting will, I am sure, agree with me that a natural forest is one of the most spectacular features of our countryside. In its natural form, the Caledonian forest contains a wide variety of different species and animals.
Scots pine is, of course, the dominant plant species, but other trees, including birch, alder, willow, aspen, rowan, juniper and holly, also appear. The vegetation below the trees includes important plant features, including heathers, blaeberry and rare species such as twinflower, creeping ladies' tresses, and various wintergreens. The animal variety contained in the Caledonian forest includes pine marten, wild cat, red squirrel, capercaillie, crested tit and the Scottish crossbill, as well as a particularly rich collection of invertebrate fauna. Taken together, the Caledonian forest represents a habitat that is one of the most natural anywhere in this country.
Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt share my regret that the extent of the forest has diminished considerably in recent centuries. Historical research has shown that it may once have covered more than 1·2 million hectares of the Highlands. A series of factors, including felling by man and grazing pressures from wildlife and domestic livestock, reduced its size considerable over the centuries, and by the middle of this century no more than small remnants remained.
The Scottish Office is fully aware of the importance of the Caledonian forest, and has for many years now taken steps to ensure its survival and, it is hoped, its future growth. Today, there are some 12,000 hectares a native pine wood of natural character in Scotland.
Under the woodland grant scheme introduced in June 1988, the Forestry Commission introduced special provisions for the management of native pine woods, aimed at maintaining and enhancing the pine wood ecosystem, protecting their aesthetic value and genetic integrity, and enlarging their area. The Forestry Commission has already received applications to create more than over 5,000 hectares of new native pinewood of natural character, which will represent a significant extension to the area of existing native pinewood in Scotland.
From next April, the pine woods will, in addition, be eligible for the special rate of management grant in return for managing the woods in a way that conserves their environmental value.
It is not, of course, possible to devise a future strategy for the Caledonian forest in isolation from other land uses in the immediate area. Factors such as the relationship with grazing and browsing animals, as well as the impact of recreational use of the land, need to be borne firmly in mind. Regeneration must rely on a number of factors to allow it to succeed. The Government are fully aware that grazing and browsing pressure has a major impact on the ability of the Caledonian forest to regenerate naturally.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government accept that there will be no chance of the forest naturally reseeding if the unnaturally high level of deer that exist there, for whatever reason, is allowed to continue?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amount of culling has increased steadily, year by year, and my understanding is that that will continue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is under way of the powers of the Red Deer Commission, with a view to possible legislation at some time in the future. The matter is not being allowed to rest.
I am aware of the arguments of those who say that the best way to allow natural regeneration is significantly to reduce deer numbers in the area, and I know that deer culling at the right level is an important priority of deer management groups and the Red Deer Commission. I should say that another effective way of bringing about regeneration has been to fence off from the outside deer range the area where regeneration is required. Deer fences play a significant role in promoting regeneration in many parts of the Caledonian forest. Much of that fencing is grant aided, either by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or by the Forestry Commission, acting on the advice of the Red Deer Commission.
Many of the important remnants of the Caledonian forest, including those at Mar Lodge and Ballochbuie in the south of the Cairngorms, as well as in Abernethy, Glenmore, and Rothiemurchus in the north, are in or near the area that is currently under consideration by the Cairngorms working party set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this year to consider current land and land use practices in the Cairngorms area and to recommend an integrated management plan consistent with the importance of the natural heritage of the area and the need to ensure social and economic benefits to local people.
The future of the forest is, I understand, already a major issue on the agenda of the working party and we shall be looking carefully at its recommendations on how to ensure the future of the forest. The working party will no doubt be considering the experience on the estates in the north of the Cairngorms where the forest is in good health due to a combination of the use of fencing and effective deer management, in part under the provisions of nature reserve agreements.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I do, I may not be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. If I have missed anything, I shall return to it later.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our international commitments with regard to the Caledonian forest in the Cairngorms. These are safeguarded as national nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest in full recognition of those commitments. We have also proposed that the Cairngorms be nominated to be a World Heritage


site of natural importance, on the recommendation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. We shall begin work to prepare our case on this matter once the working party has completed its work.
I should now like to refer to Mar Lodge estate itself. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the future ownership of the estate. First and foremost, I should tell him that I share his assessment of the importance of the estate, which occupies a central position in the Cairngorms. It contains three major peaks as well as other important high ground, and—most important in terms of this debate—important remnants of the Caledonian forest in the Forest of Mar. It provides important habitats for rare birds and other species, as well as providing the main access points to the plateau from Deeside, including access to the Lairig Ghru. I have no doubt that Mar Lodge estate will form an essential component in the integrated management plan for the Cairngorms and that the active participation of the owners of Mar Lodge estate will be an important element in the success of that plan.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, a series of discussions took place between various bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a number of voluntary bodies to consider options for the purchase and management of the estate.
It was disappointing to us that the offer made by the Crown Estate to Mr. Kluge was not accepted. I understand that the Crown Estate offer was based on an independent valuation of the estate and was very substantial. Independent valuation is clearly the correct course of action to safeguard the potential use of public funds, and purchase at above this rate is unlikely to be cost-effective.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would be prepared to purchase Mar Lodge itself by compulsory purchase. As he will know, that is not the approach that the Government generally take to the management of the natural heritage throughout Scotland. Private ownership forms the basis of landholding in most of Scotland and has proved capable of sustaining environmentally sensitive management in many locations. The Scottish Office firmly believes that private ownership, with a management agreement negotiated with the conservation agencies, is in general the best approach to the management of Scotland's natural heritage. Private landowners have shown in many areas that economic land use, conservation and recreational management are able to co-exist. There is no reason why that should not happen at Mar Lodge in the future.
I do not accept that, if Mar Lodge is to remain in private hands, it will not be possible to give sufficient priority to nature conservation. As much of the estate is already part of the national nature reserve and protected by the arrangement governing sites of special scientific interest and other conservation designations, natural heritage interests will be well protected under the existing powers of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, and later Scottish Natural Heritage. The Cairngorms working party

will make recommendations on an integrated management plan for the area, including Mar Lodge estate, which will be consistent with World Heritage status and we shall look to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and, later, Scottish Natural Heritage to negotiate appropriate management agreements with the new owner, whoever that turns out to be, which are consistent with this integrated management plan. I am confident that a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations is possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked what costs there would be to the nation in managing Mar Lodge as a private estate for nature conservation involving profits forgone and compensation by the NCCS. He will, I am sure, understand that it is not possible to give any clear indication of the costs involved, as there is no existing management agreement covering the management of Mar Lodge estate for the purpose of nature conservation alone. It is also impossible to predict with any certainty exactly what type of operations would be proposed by a private landowner that would involve compensation under the profits forgone principle. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would look to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, and later Scottish Natural Heritage, to seek to negotiate an agreement or agreements with the new owner that brought about the necessary objectives while ensuring that the interests of the taxpayer were fully respected.

Mr. Donald Dewar: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I may answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow's other two questions, then I shall give way.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also asked whether the Government would be prepared to arrest the sale of Mar Lodge estate and to support a public appeal for funds to buy the estate. I am aware that the voluntary conservation bodies are continuing to consider the possibilty of making a bid for Mar Lodge estate themselves. We would be prepared to consider any proposal that those organisations might wish to make to us for Government support. Such a proposal would need to be channelled through the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. But I should make it clear that that form of ownership, like public ownership, is not always the best means of securing our overall objectives in Scotland's countryside. I should also make it clear that we are not prepared to consider placing restrictions on private ownership such as would be implied by a temporary compulsory purchase order: that would place an unacceptable restriction on the operation of the market.
In response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow's point about Government finances, I should make it clear that the responsibility for nature conservation in Scotland now lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following the coming into force of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he and I have made clear at many points during our debates on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Government are fully committed to implementing our responsibilities in this field effectively in Scotland. We have already provided NCCS with a substantial budget for this financial year and fully intend to provide SNH with the resources needed to make it a strong, viable and effective natural heritage body.
Creag Meagaidh was purchased by the NCC in 1985, after negotiations with a private owner on a management


agreement failed. The circumstances of that case and the scale of the purchase at £450,000 were considerably different from those proposed for Mar Lodge.
As a final point I should make it clear that the health of the pine woods on Mar Lodge is already a priority for the agencies of Government and will continue to be so in the future. Although the estate has increased its deer cull in past years, I recognise that natural regeneration on the estate is generally in poor shape at the present time. There are, however, small deer enclosures maintained by NCCS where regeneration has been relatively successful. I would expect the working party to recommend that the Forest of Mar, as well as other remnants of the forest in the Cairngorms area, be suitably sustained and if possible extended in future years.
We have one more minute, so perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) could question me briefly.

Mr. Dewar: I wanted to clarify the position. The Minister allowed, or presumably encouraged, the Crown Estates Commissioners to bid after consultation with other public sector bodies. In the course of his remarks he gave the impression—in fact he specifically said, as I understood it—that his view was that private ownership and management agreements were the best way to do it, which seems somewhat incompatible with the

Government's position only a short time before. He said that he will listen to any offer that is made. Does that include the possibility of positive Government financial co-operation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give a guarantee of funds on the table tonight. We will consider seriously any proposal made to us. The Crown Estates Commissioners are independent of Government and we were in touch with them. We considered sympathetically their aims, which we thought were very worthy. It is unfortunate that those proposals have fallen through. Mr. Kluge has made his position on that absolutely clear.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of natural regeneration being in poor shape, it is that natural regeneration is non-existent. I hope that the Minister will go there and walk over the same areas that he may have walked over before. The situation has become absolutely dire. Before any decisions are taken, are we waiting for the report of the Cairngorms working party? Until we have the assurance that nothing irrevocable—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.